Suspect's Reviews

[Terminator734]

nice review but i think it was more 6/10 it was highly entertaining but like you said u gotta stap yourself in for the ride to fully enjoy it

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ultraviolet (Kurt Wimmer)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/screen_gems/ultraviolet/milla_jovovich/ultraviolet12.jpg

No, that is not a giant tampon she is holding.


"Did Screen Gems Ruin Ultraviolet?"

A woman vampire in a futuristic world must protect a small boy by the name of SIX. He is in fact the cure to all humans transformed into vampires. With everyone on her tail, she must use her skills to not only protect the boy, but to live.

I gave Equilibrium a 9, it was truly an amazing film. When I saw the trailer for Ultraviolet, I was as hyped up to see it as I thought I would be. The immediate thought that sprang into my mind was Equilibrium: The Sequel, only this time with Mila fighting the good fight. Throughout the course of the film, you get the sense that there are good parts in it, a snippet here and there. Unfortunately, the editing of a film can change the view of it drastically. For better or worse, films like Donnie Darko, Kingdom of Heaven and Blade Runner all have director's cuts. I would very much like to see this film again, with Wimmer's vision in the editing stages, not Screen Gems. What could have been a bloodbath 120 minute R rated film, turned into an 88 minute PG-13 kid flick.

For a studio to take a directors film and totally re-edit it is basically a slap in the face. Poor Wimmer has his name pasted all over this pile of dung heap and I for one feel sorry for him. Not that what he had was all that great to begin with, but I can see a rating being higher then a 2 with a director's cut. So where does this film fault? Pretty much everywhere. It's main pitch to the audience was it's "wow" factor in the fight scenes. Some are good, some are pretty bad....like do we really need to see a fight through each and every person's shades? It's disorienting and horribly done.

Mila is wooden here and Bright plays the exact same character in every single film he does. He's that creepy kid. This one of two films where he plays a boy that is known as a "cure". He does absolutely nothing, other then running with the main character and saying wooden lines that are suppose to make our hero "feel" something.

To be completely honest, I did not know this film was about vampires until have way through it, when I saw the teeth and was like, "what the hell is going on here?". Would it have been a better film if I has known it was about vampires, probably not. Why even have the vampire story in here, they do not use it at all. There is no vampire mythology in here. They could have simply made something up, "alien blood" in their system, or some other crap excuse to "cure" them, but vampires? The lead villain has no memorable factors about it, whatsoever. He's boring, inane and most of all pointless.

When you see a scene with the lead female on a motorcycle, that is riding on the side of a building because she used some kind of gravity device, you know you're in for a "cool look at this scene" type of film...house of the dead anyone? To say that Wimmer is the next Uwe Boll, is not fair. Equilibrium is an astounding film, and Ultraviolet, although a big, big misstep, is not the end of his career. Ultraviolet is a film you can definitely decide to skip when you see it sitting on the shelf in a video store. If you're looking for something to equal Equilibrium, look somewhere else please. This film is in no way an entertaining movie. The only chance I will give it, is when I see "DC" on the cover.

2/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, I will give this one a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Clerks II (Kevin Smith)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/weinstein_company/clerks_ii/_group_photos/brian_christopher_o_halloran5.jpg


"Smith Serves Us A Gross, Vulgar, Obscene, But Funny Comedy In Clerks II"

It's been 12 years since we left Dante and Randal at the Quick Stop and guess what, it got burned down to the ground. So looking for new jobs, the duo end up at Mooby's, a fictional McDonald's. It's Dante's last day before he moves to Florida with his Fiancée, leaving his best friend Randal back in New Jersey. But as well all know, today isn't going to go as Dante planned.

Porch Monkey - A person, of African descent, usually found in the Southern states of the United States. Porch Monkeys were commonly found sitting on their porches doing little or nothing all day. Usually found on Plantations or large land lots with a house/shack of some sort including a porch.

-Urban Dictionary

I wasn't the biggest fan of Clerks when I first saw it, it just didn't live up to the hype that surrounded it. After repeated viewings, it grew on me, and I actually enjoy it quite a bit now, still does not live up to it's hype though. Now, with the sequel coming out, I was hoping that I would enjoy it more since I also work in the fast food business. Is Clerks II funnier then the original? I believe so, with most of the jokes being "geek" oriented. Although, I think that the original Clerks is the better film. Smith's comedy is still immature, gross and vulgar, but that's what one can expect when they enter this flick. Is a man having sex with a donkey funny? Not really, but for some odd reason, it works for Clerks II.

For fans of the original who were the same age of it's characters, they will be able to relate to them, yet again. In this installment, the 30 something slackers complain about not doing anything with their lives. The film, being as gross and funny as it is, also gets sappy in one scene, which involves Dante and Randal talking to each other about the past and how their friendship is ruined.

The new and improved Jay and Silent Bob return as well, with Jay giving a pretty funny depiction of Buffalo Bill from the Silence of the Lambs. You can't help but laugh at everything these two screwballs do. I'm glad to see them on the big screen once again. With the returns of some familiar faces, there are also new characters added to the mix. Elias, who's a Lord of the Rings, Transformers loving, Christian virgin. Who is the perfect counter-part to Randals obscene vulgarity. As well as Becky, the manager at Mooby's who has a thing for Dante. While Dawson as Becky is not funny, she is sweet and cute. Just what the film needs. Trevor Fehrman plays the virgin Elias, who was surprisingly funny here. The bit between him, the hobbit loving customer and Randal as they discuss Lord of the Rings VS Star Wars is a high point.

Some will say that Smith has reached a new low, entering bestiality into the mix. But when all his films but two are about dick and fart jokes, it was only a short amount of time before we saw something like this. With the LOTR VS Star Wars scene being a high point, the only other scene that stands out in my mind that had my laughing out loud, would be the porch monkey scene, and all porch monkey related jokes afterward. Again, involving Randal, as does every other great jokes in this film...umm Anne Frank, Or Hellen Keller, how about pillow pants?

Smith's writing is top notch here. The film is about him in his 30's, and with Dante and Randal he can spew whatever he wants out of them. He does not fault here, it's just as sharp and edgy as he ever was, maybe even more now. You can tell that Smith tried to push the envelope with his childish humour, and well, it works. He's matured, yes, but still has that child in him, which is obvious. O'Halloran and Anderson are not great actors, which is apparent in this film, but they play off each other so well and are use to their characters that most of the time you can't tell, or you let it pass.

Smith's usual crew make cameos, with Lee playing yet another character. This time an old high school rival. You'll also see Ben Affleck for 10 seconds and Ethan Suplee, trying to score some drugs from Jay and Bob. New face Wanda Sykes makes an cameo, playing a disgruntled "black" customer. She doesn't serve up any laughs, it's Randal and the porch monkey comment, but don't worry...he's taking it back.

Do you need to see the original to get this movie? No. But, for those who have seen the original, there are the occasional references to it...ending anyone? As well as the other View Askewniverse films, like the ABC song and of course, Mooby's. If you have seen the original, you may appreciate some of the jokes more. Smith , who everyone thought matured, with Jersey Girl, is back doing what he does best, he serves us a gross, vulgar, obscene, but funny comedy in Clerks II and that is exactly what one should expect when they go to see this.

8/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review :D

[Iroquois]

Damn, I wish it was August 31st. Why must America get everything early?

And I agree about the studios ruining films like Ultraviolet. I especially hate how they butchered the ending to Army of Darkness.

[Don Fishies]

I love the studio ending to Army of Darkness so much more than the original ending.

Without it, we'd never have gotten the single best line of dialogue in the franchise.

"Hail to the king baby".

:cool:

[Iroquois]

I love the studio ending to Army of Darkness so much more than the original ending.

Without it, we'd never have gotten the single best line of dialogue in the franchise.

"Hail to the king baby".

:cool:

Yet you quote "groovy" in your sig.

Besides, if you consider the endings to the previous Evil Dead movies, it's more fitting.

At the end of Evil Dead 1, Ash survives the night with the Deadites, only to be attacked at the very end by the "force". It's an unexpected ending that either means Ash is possessed or dead at the end.

At the end of Evil Dead 2, Ash is forcibly sucked into the vortex and ends up in the 1300s, hailed as a conquering hero. However, he has no way to get back home, and screams in anguish. Another "oh no" ending.

With the original Army of Darkness ending, the adventure continues because Ash is now stuck a hundred years into the future, after a massive apocalypse has ruined the world. This paves the way for a post-apocalyptic Deadite-slashing tale, aka Evil Dead 4.

The "S-Mart" ending doesn't fit with the other endings, hence my reasons for not liking it. It's just not Evil Dead.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Snakes On A Plane (David R. Ellis)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/snakes_on_a_plane/tygh_runyan/snakesonaplane1.jpg



The Best Picture Of The Decade....To Feature Snakes On Planes

An FBI agent saves the life of a man who witnesses a murder. The murderer, Eddie Kim, knows the witness will testify against him and hatches a plan so brilliant it's dumb. He releases tons of poisonous snakes on the plane that was destined for L.A. Hence the title, Snakes On A Plane.

What made Snakes On A Plane, or SoaP, so popular before it came out? Well, it could be a number of things, first the ridiculous title that kicks ass and sums up the entire plot of the film. Second, it's star who's known as a badass mofo, that would be none other then Samuel L. Jackson. How about the fact the the fans got to have their ideas put into the film. More violence, more nudity and more swearing from Sam Jackson was added because of the voice of the fans. If these elements were not part of the film, then SoaP would no doubt be a straight to video release like some other inane horror films, Boa Vs Python comes to mind. SoaP though, rises above those crappy B horror campy films, even though it is indeed one itself.

Much like this years Slither, SoaP is a film that takes the horror genre and the comedy genre and mixes it with campy style that is destined to make it a cult classic. With a specific target audience and an attitude that says the film will be awful, but enjoy it for what it is, SoaP manages to be...actually good. SoaP will be one of those films that you can have drinking games to, whenever someone says "snake" take a shot.

I'm not going to talk about plot holes in the film, cause it's SNAKES ON A PLANE. With a title like that you have to expect stupid things to happen, and stupid things indeed do happen. You must see the film with a group of friends in order to get the full enjoyment out of it. You'll be laughing at scenes where people throw dogs at snakes and where a harpoon Gun is used as a weapon, but you can forgive such things, cause well...it's SNAKES ON A PLANE. The stupidity mixes very well with the comedy, seeing a snake get sucked out of the side of the plane, with a guy still in it's mouth is something you either laugh at or roll your eyes at, and if you're rolling your eyes in the film, then you missed the point of it.

Is this Sam Jackson at his best? Of course not, he's just here to have a fun time, he gets to shoot snakes, burn snakes, taser snakes, and beat them. I would have liked to have Jackson do more of his swearing though, I don't think it would have taken away from his "Mo F'in snakes on this Mo F'in plane" line, cause that's gold on it's own. He is indeed a badass and that's what one should expect. Everyone else does surprisingly well, the supporting cast help round out the film.

I can't help but ask for more violence in this already violent film. Yes it was originally rated PG-13, but once adding new scenes, involving nudity and bad language, you would expect a bit more violence. There are a lot of fast paced snake attacks, involving eyes, throats and faces, but it could have been so much more. It was pretty random to see a heel from a woman's shoe being stuck in a man's ear.

All in all, you can't expect all too much from the film. Afterall, it is called SNAKES ON A PLANE. It's not as "badass" as one would think, but it is a fun ride. It delivers what it promises, snakes on a plane, snakes on crack and a badass Sam Jackson. Soap is the best picture of the decade, to feature snakes on planes.

8/10

[nebbit]

I was going to give SoaP a miss, after reading your passionate review ;D I will see it when it is out on DVD :laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene)


http://www.wfs.be.schule.de/programm/inhalt/stumm_cabinet1.jpg


It's An Artistic Bizarre Experience That Any Film Fan Should Watch!

Deranged Doctor Caligari and faithful somnambulist (sleepwalker), Cesare, wreak havoc in a small mountain village in Germany. Murders occur and the investigation leads towards the somnambulist, but is everything what it seems?

This is a film that is able to convey so much without ever hearing the actors speak. Yes, the film is a silent film, with the only sound coming from the piano played throughout the entire film, but that is what helps make the film so great. It makes the film more eerie and in the end, thought provoking. The story is told through a flashback from the main character Francis, the story itself is short and to the point. Yet this film manages to still be an influence today.

With a distorted set design that blends well with the inter titles, one gets an uneasy feeling while viewing the film, something isn't right...you can't pin-point it till the conclusion of the film reveals what really is happening. The style of the film influences many works of art today, from multiple horror films to music videos, such as the Red Hot Chili Peppers "Otherside". The film has beautiful images that were created to distort the reality of the film, which makes it really stand out on it's own.

Just when you think you've been able to solve everything, the final frame of the film makes you doubt your own answers. Creating debates for years and years as to what the audience had just seen. Caligari is one of the best German expressionist films, and is able to stand on it's own today. 86 years later and it still is able to shock and please the viewer. Caligari has stood the test of time is comes out on top.

Known as the first "horror" film, it still manages to give the viewer the creeps. From the evil looking Caligara to the almost dead like somnambulist. Influencing film noir and horror, Caligari was years ahead of it's time. In the end, it's an art film. Everything about it is beautiful. The picture quality only enhances the viewer's experience in enjoying the film. I recommend Caligari to any film fan.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Scary Movie 4 (David Zucker)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/scary_movie_4/_group_photos/anna_faris1.jpg


"Where Are The Laughs?"

This is the fourth installment in the Scary Movie franchise, this time we see Cindy in the middle of an extermination. With the world coming to an end, Cindy must find the father of a little boy who was killed in the house she works at in order to stop everything.

Ever since David Zucker took over the franchise it seems to have gotten less gross out funny and, well, less funny in general. In this installment, the series has gone further then to parody horror films. This time we get to see a half baked Brokeback Mountain joke and Million Dollar Baby. Whoever thought that these jokes were funny doesn't have one funny bone in their entire body.

We get the same old same old from Anna Faris and Regina Hall, who I still think serves no purpose. Anthony Anderson and Leslie Nielsen return from the third film in the same roles and newcomer Craig Bierko plays a parody of Tom Cruise.

I can say that I did not laugh out loud once during the entire film, which goes by pretty fast. I did chuckle once at the beginning with Dr. Phil cutting off the wrong foot. Other then that there is nothing else that is worth a chuckle. I'm not going to go into the whole plot of the film, as it is indeed a parody, so it doesn't really matter. I'm also sitting here and asking myself why did they show a scene with Madsen hitting a guy and assuming his identity, then donig nothing with it. I was waiting for him to do something, but nothing came of it, why put that in? It confuses and makes no sense.

Seeing Carmen Electra in the film take a dump is horrifying, not "hot" or "funny". At no point should people laugh at the film. It is an insult to your intelligence. Skip this film all together and hopefully they are finished with all the scary movie films.

3/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

City Of Rott (Frank Sudol)

http://www.blackarro.com/5CORpics06/ROTTpics2006/1Rottpics2006_.jpg


"Newgrounds Flash Animation Style And A Repetitive Film Makes For A Boring Watch"

An elderly man and his trusty walker go in to City of Rott looking for some new slippers. There's only one problem, the city is overrun by blood thirsty zombies. What follows is a gore hounds dream, animation style.

What made me watch City of Rott? Well, I was attracted to it by it's cover. A cartoon zombie flick with it's main star wielding a walker. I was kind of reminded of Bubba Ho-Tep, in which the Kinf of Rock and Roll fought against the King of The Dead. I have never heard of COR, but being a fan of horror films, and being intrigued by the cover art, which is unfortunately one of it's few highlights, I bought the flick and watched it immediately. There are some elements in COr that work, but the are few and far between, much of it a a repetitive mess. Then again, what can you expect from a film that was made entirely by one man.

Frank Sudol or "FSudol" brings us a film that he wrote, directed, animated, edited, composed, produced, so on and so forth. With it's Flash like animated style, that one would find on such web-sties like "newgrounds" it stands out among other animated films, but it's unique style may put off a lot of viewers who aren't really ready for the basic animated style. Although the detail on the character are quite good and comedic. I was surprised with the variations of zombies that I found in COR, I was expecting the same face to pop up every now and then.

The main character, Fred, is alone, unarmed and going insane. Looking for a pair of slippers may sound humorous, but it wears thin after the film starts. After a few chuckles here or there, the rest of the film is not really all that funny. With the comedy not working in this film, there is really only one more thing that it can rely on. It's the gore, and the film features plenty of it.

The unrated COR features an abundant amount of blood and gore. Not only do zombies get shot in the head, but they get impaled with spikes, ran over by cars and decapitated by...yup you guessed it, Fred's walker. Fred uses his trusty friend as a weapon to kill the undead. Along with Fred there is a nurse, who quickly becomes a zombie, a random civilian with guns to randomly shoot zombies and another old man, who coincidentally carries the cure to being a zombie.

These aren't your regular day to day zombies, this time it's parasitic worms that infest the decaying bodies. It's a new way to spin the zombie tale that could work for a feature film, but here it doesn't seem to flow very well. COR would work very well as a short, but it drags on way too long and crawls pass the finish line. After Fred gets bitten by the zombies the film becomes rather pointless. The only reason for the film to go on like this is for Fred to get the cure, so you know what will happen. Basically the entire film is watching cartoon character beat the living crap out of these zombies. While it is all in good fun, much like the final scene in Dead-Alive. It becomes repetitive in the first 30 minutes, and you are asking yourself if anything new will ever come up.

I will give Frank Sudol credit for it being a one man show, it has great blood and guts and a unique animation style that could work as a short film, but COR becomes very boring, very fast. Frank, get more people on the same crew with you, put more time into the production, more then one year, and then come back with a film that will knock our socks off. There is potential here, but it's taken in the wrong direction. Which is a shame, cause the cover art is really kick ass.

4/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Over The Hedge (Tim Johnson
Karey Kirkpatrick)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/over_the_hedge/garry_shandling/hedge1.jpg


"Hedge Is Better Then The Recent Flood Of Animated Films"


RJ the raccoon must repay a food debt to a grumpy old bear, Vincent. On his quest for food, he comes across a small family of animals living on the side of a hedge. With no food but tree bark and twigs for the group of animals, RJ takes charge as he cons them into gathering food for hi to give to Vincent.

I expected Over The Hedge to join the list of Valiant, Shark Tale and Madagascar as animated films that come and go. While Hedge does take a while to get to the laughs, it's the second half of the film that saves it from being added to that list. It seems that after the success of Toy Story back in the day and Shrek being noticed as a film to bring the animated films out of the closet, many actors are jumping at the chance to add their voices to the colourful characters of animation. Hedge is packed with many big names, who's voices all work perfectly with the characters. Carell is perfect as the always on the go squirrel and Shanter is genius as the always playing dead possum.

The animation is better then expected, with the fur on the tails and the blades of grass all looking very impressive. The only downfall lies within the humans. Much like Toy Story, they humans in this film look amateurish to me. Dwayne, the verminator, looks like he should be voiced by someone like Patrick Warburton, but Church did an honest job at it.

Running under 90 minutes, the film does come and go pretty quickly. It leaves one to think that they could have done so much more with the film. With a slow start, it would seem that Hedge is not really going anywhere, but with the second half of the film, mainly the house raid, Hedge is able to move ahead of the pack.

I was surprised by the amount of laughs it got out of me. Hedge is definitely better then the recent flood of animated films, and you'll be glad you gave it a chance.

7.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Grandma's Boy (Nicholaus Goossen)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/grandma_s_boy/_group_photos/allen_covert2.jpg



"Less On The Weed And More On The Games Would Make This Film Funny"


After "not paying rent" in his old apartment, 25 year old gamer Alex has to move in with his grandmother and her two lady friends. Free food, smoking weed and playing games sounds like the best thing for Alex, but his grandmother is making him do chores around the house. These chores are making Alex too tired to test any games for glitches, or even finish his own game "Demonik".

This is a film that is made by the guys that you always see in Sandler's films. Why someone out there thought that they deserved their own film is beyond me, but here we have it and they missed the ball completely. With a concept that would appeal to many "geeks" and gamers alike, the film just has no really funny moments to keep the laughter going throughout. Maybe if "Grandma's Boy" concentrated less on the weed and more on the games, then this film would be a lot funnier.

With Allen Covert in the lead role (you might recognize him as Sandler's roommate in Little Nicky) I had my doubts that he would be able to hold the film on his own. While he does try his best, he gets upstaged by Nick Swardson as Jeff, the race car bed guy. Swardson manages to get most of, if not the only laughs in the entire film, whether it be his Dance Dance Revolution jig or just his tone of voice, he is without a doubt the highlight in the unfunny flick. I see good things for hi in the future for comedy. Not even the random cameo's from SNL alumni can get a laugh, with Rob Schneider, David Spade and Kevin Nealon (in a bizarre role). I'm still sitting here asking myself why is Doris Roberts even in this film.

For a film about video games and video game testers, there isn't that many moments of video games in it. Other then the final of the film, that serves no purpose what so ever...come on, the grandma playing the game? Along with one or two other moments the film is really about smoking weed and having a party. If the filmmakers had left out the whole weed part of it and added in more games and more comedy involving games, poking fun at gamers, then I could find myself enjoying it a bit more. This is also one of the few films when I question the point of having nudity in it. Is it to get a laugh with the kid sucking on the breasts?

One of the long running gags in the film is that it pokes fun at the "Matrix Geeks", with one of it's character dressing up like NEO and acting like a robot, much like Keanue Reeves acting. This character has to be the most annoying part of the entire thing. His constant robot speeches and actions get tiresome after the second time and eye rolling the third and fourth. I wanted to shoot myself every other time he did it.

There is no real plot to the film, it's just about a guy who moves in with his grandmother and has to test a game. Near the end, there is somewhat of a plot when the neo character steals the game from Alex and he has to prove that the game is his, but the answer they come up with is ridiculous. Jokes drag on way too long that aren't funny, again the matrix guy, and jokes that do work are way to short, Dance Dance Revolution.

I'd recommend that you skip this film as it has no real funny parts that weren't shown in the trailer. You may laugh at the fact that the lead character does in fact look like Mel Gibson. Grandma's Boy is a painful experience that will have you scratching your head as to why you gave it the light of day in the first place.

3.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks Sus, not much there to run out and see :eek:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Crank (Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/crank/_group_photos/jason_statham10.jpg


"Crank Tries It's Best To Inject Life Into The Dead Action Films"


Chev Chelios, a hit-man, wakes up in his room and sees a disc. Upon playing it he discovers that he has been injected with a Chineese poison that will kill him if his heart rate drops too much. Now, he must keep his adrenaline up in order to exact his revenge on those who poisoned him. Creating havoc in the streets is the only way for him to survive.

The concept of Crank seems like a brainless, action film that would have no plot what so ever and bad dialogue. Crank is exactly that, but manages to have fun with the action formula at the same time. Crank takes the old 90's action films, and video games such as Grand Theft Auto and throws it into high gear in under 90 minutes. It's safe to assume that you won't be expecting Crank to win Best Picture at the Oscar's next year and if you go into the film with an open mind, you'll find it to be an enjoyable pleasure that is endless action after endless action. It's just too bad that the film's fast pace take away from the action.

Statham plays Chelios and is great for the part, even if it is basically a re-hash of every other character that he does. With stars like Arnold, Sly and Bruce taking a leave from the action genre, it appears that Statham is the next in line to take over. I stated, back when The Transporter came out, that Statham was to be added to the list of names for the next top action star, on that list included Vin Diesel and The Rock. With Crank, Statham manages to jump ahead of the pack, but that may also be credited to Diesel branching off into other directions, Find ME Guilty and The Pacifier. Along for the ride with Statham is Amy Smart, who plays the role of his girlfriend, who doesn't know that he's a hit-man. Smart serves as eye candy and is there basically for Statham to have sex with in the middle of Chinatown. It's to keep his adrenaline up, I swear.

The dialogue is pretty bad, one only has to listen to a line like "Don't pop a blood vessel you little penis." to start rolling their eyes. Statham is either spitting out bad dialogue or is yelling at objects and people. To accompany this bad dialogue is the lack of a plot. Other then the fact that Statham has been injected with poison and wants to have revenge, there is nothing else in the film. Of course there is the clichéd hit-man wants to leave the game for his girlfriend bit, but it comes out of nowhere and the film goes nowhere with it.

The film is juvenile with it's humour, having Statham have a boner because of the shot of adrenaline he took. Crank also has some pretty random comedic parts, such as having c*nt written on Statham for head in one scene and in the last minute of the film, which is basically a parody of the never ending falling you always seem to see in action films. Crank's pace is really fast and it ends fairly quickly, because of this non of the action sticks in your mind as anything special. It doesn't seem as big as it could have been, or wanted to be. Crank is too condensed in it's short time span that the action seems to little, even if that's all the film is about. With no particular scene sticking out in my mind as explosive, the build up to the so called climax leaves us wanting more. The climax of Crank isn't as big as the audience would want it to be and after all the action and build up the first 80 minutes has the last few feels like it's full of hot air.

Crank could have been a great action film that was one big explosive scene after the next, but it falls an inch short of that and ends up becoming a joke at certain points. The film is all good and fun indeed, but near the end the fun dwindles away and leaves an empty feeling. All in all it's a something that you can enjoy and possibly have a good time with, but make sure your brain is at home.

7/10

[nebbit]

make sure your brain is at home.
OK :yup:

Seeing what others thought of Crank your 7/10 is quite generous :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (Jonathan Liebesman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/texas_chainsaw_massacre__the_beginning/jordana_brewster/chainsaw.jpg
"Look Ma, No Ass Crack"


"Tries To Be Better Then The Remake, But It Turns A Horror Icon Into A Mess."

On one last road trip before going off to serve in Vietnam, two brothers and their girlfriends get into an accident on an isolated road. The local sheriff shows up and brings them home to his deranged family, that nurtures a young man, that soon becomes the notorious Leatherface.

In 1974 Tobe Hooper gave audiences a new experience in horror and created a horror icon, that to this day still sends shivers down some spines. Spawing many sequels, that gradually got worse and worse, it was time for a revamp. In 2003 was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, this time with Jessica Biel and Michael Bay as a producer. While it did have some nice moments, it failed to capture any real sense of terror or horror that it intended. Now we have a prequel to that remake that promises gore, terror and the birth of fear. Unfortunately for the horror fans, it's yet another miss for the chainsaw wielding menace and instead of shivers being sent down those spines, it's simply agony.

Seeing the poster for the new TCM film gave me hope, it was actually good, in fact it was better then good, it was one of the best horror posters I've seen in a while. Maybe, just maybe someone could turn this franchise in the right direction. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems that the direction has gone off the map. While in some scenes the film is indeed better then the remake, the film just happens to turn a horror icon into a mess. What once was a scary as hell character, leatherface, is now nothing more then just a misunderstood boy.

Right from the beginning of the film, I found myself laughing at it. Seeing the birth of fear, as they say, reminded me too much of the film Bride Of Chucky. Which could have been fine, if the film didn't take itself so seriously. It does indeed follow the horror formula, bad acting, blood and guts, profanity, somewhat disturbing images and even a ****ty script, but those things that are suppose to make a horror film fun, does the exact opposite with The Beginning.

With a short running time of 84 minutes, it seems to go on longer because your not enjoying yourself. Sure it's nice to see how things happen in the prequel that connects to the other films, but this is the case for all prequels and it's expected. Not even the deaths were enjoyable. The chainsaw death scene in "Dead & Breakfast" was gorier and more enjoyable then any chainsaw related death here...and the frickin movie is called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There is some gore, not as much as I would have wanted, and it's not full screen gore either. It's edited in a way that you can see some of it, but not all of it. Right from the beginning with the death of the old man who owned the meat company, the cuts were too quick to see the damage that was being done. You'll see the blood splatter on the faces of the characters, but only a quick glimpse of the actual chainsaw death. I'll give this film props though for having more then one chainsaw death though.

R Lee Ermey plays the over the top sheriff again, he fits the role well, but the film put a little too much emphasis on his character. Sure he is leading the family pack, but the film is about the origin of leatherface, more on him killing the others would have been great. All the victims here are by the numbers, the boyfriend, the best friend and brother, all die. The hot lead, and boy is she hot, dies in this one. I'm actually happy with that, and the fact that the director chose to showcase Jordana Brewster's ass every chance he got.

There were certain scenes that I did enjoy though, they were shot fairly well. Which was a surprise to me. To say this is a step of for Liebesman is an understatement. After the horrible, HORRIBLE, Darkness Falls, I'll gladly welcome this with open arms. He still has much to learn, but given enough time, he can become a prominent horror director. The obligatory chainsaw chase scene was better then the remake. I felt the sense of being there on the chase, which was fun for a bit and the film does pick up from there, but there is only ten minutes left after that chase and then it's over.

The film ends with the voice over of how the murders were real and the film is base don a true story, I think after 30 some odd years we get it, no need to continue to jam that message down our throats. With so many good remakes out there, Dawn of the Dead, Hills Have Eyes and horror films that are actually good, Devil's Rejects and Silent Hill. There is really no need to watch The Beginning.

4/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Departed (Martin Scorsese)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_departed/_group_photos/leonardo_dicaprio10.jpg


"Scorsese Is Back To His Old Form & Gives Us The Best Film Of 2006."

Billy Costigan is an undercover cop who gets thrown into the hands of a notorious gangster, Frank Costello. Colin Sullivan is a member of Costello's gang who is a mole in the Boston police department. Once word gets out that there is a mole in the police department and a rat in Costello's gang, things begin to heat up as they try and smoke out the other.

Infernal Affairs blew me away a couple years ago, then I heard that one of my favourite directors was doing a remake. I was a little hesitant at first, I didn't know if I was going to see old Scorsese (Goodfellas, Casino) or the recent Scorsese (Gangs Of New York, The Aviator). Granted the films under his belt as of late are not horrible, in fact they're great, they just don't have that old school touch that made Scorsese such a great director. With The Departed Scorsese is back to his old form and gives us the best film of 2006.

The Departed is full of old school tricks from Scorsese. From an Iris Out and that classic Goodfellas feel, it makes for an intense thrill ride that will have you on the edge of your seat. With the crop of films this year not being all that great (save for a select few), The Departed blows them all out of the water. It's brutal with it's violence and doesn't hold back on anything.

DiCaprio and Damon both shine in their roles, with DiCaprio having the more intense part and more screen time. I only favour DiCaprio a tad more because the scenes with Damon and Farmiga are a tad boring to watch. It was a joy to watch both of these characters slowly lose their minds being on both sides of the fence. Although they both shine in this film, they can't touch the great Nicholson. He is absolutely astonishing. He owns every scene he is in, even when he starts acting like a rat. He has this evil presence about him in this film, but he plays it with such a comedic tone, you can't hate the guy, but you can fear him. After seeing how great he is in this film I'm left wondering why Scorsese and Nicholson haven't worked together before now.

Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Vera Farmiga and even Anthony Anderson all blend well together to bring the cast of The Departed full circle. Wahlberg stands out in this list, he is just as mean and foul mouthed as Nicholson and can actually hold his own with such a prominent actor as Sheen sitting right beside him. Alec Baldwin is a joy to watch as he spits out his comedic lines left right and centre and Martin Sheen brings the missing piece that fits the thrilling puzzle that is The Departed.

There are numerous violent scenes that scream Goodfellas or Casino and it's nice to get that old feeling back. The film is gritty, brutal and violent and doesn't let you sit there and feel comfortable with any of it. People are getting shot left right and centre, beaten to death, hit numerous times with coat racks, beaten with shoes, stabbed, thrown out of buildings. The blood splashes all over the screen and with people getting shot in the face everywhere, you feel the uneasiness that Scorsese wanted. It's not as brutal as the one infamous baseball bat scene in Casino, but it ranks up there.

The film does tend to drag on in certain areas, but that's expected. With it's fast story telling pace, Scorsese slows it down a bit so we can get to know more about who these two characters are. He keeps us on the edge of our seats wondering if their cover is going to be blown cause it can be blown at any point in time. Even after watching Infernal Affairs I was still tense, wondering what was going to happen next. That is the work of a great director.

The Departed will get recognized by the Academy, but I doubt it will win anything. Scorsese is after 0/5 in that race. One can only hope though, cause he deserves it so much. This film, although definitely not his best (I don't think anything he does will surpass Goodfellas) packs one hell of a bloody punch. It has strong performances and a dark comedic tone that will have you laughing along with it. In the hands of any other director, it could have been a mess. Thank you Mr. Scorsese, for letting me have fun at the movies again.

9/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for your enthusiastic great review, I have just read Pikeys review of this movie, you have both convinced me to see Departed as soon as it comes to town :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Where's Pike's review? Never saw it.

[nebbit]

Where's Pike's review? Never saw it.
Here http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=348017#post348017 :D

[Holden Pike]

Where's Pike's review? Never saw it.
Were you really looking?

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1159016/photo_15_thumb.jpg http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1159016/photo_22_thumb.jpg http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1159016/photo_09_thumb.jpg

I posted it twice; in the Scorsese thread HERE (http://movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=347916) and in the Last Movie You Saw in the Theater thread HERE (http://movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=347894).

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Grudge 2 (Takashi Shimizu)



http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/the_grudge_2/thegrudge2_eye2.jpg


"Grudge 2 Uses The Same Scare Throughout The Entire Film"


After hearing that her older sister is in a hospital for burning down a house, Aubrey is sent to Tokyo by her mother to bring her back. After things go wrong, she encounters a journalist interested in the story of the house. Unfortunately for Aubrey, she then encounters the same mysterious curse that afflicted her sister. The curse not only takes over Aubrey's life, but the lives of other victims along the way, including a family in Chicago and schoolgirls in Tokyo.
The Ring brought a new wave of Asian horror cinema to North America. After it's success, it was no surprise that more studios would jump on the bandwagon and 2004's "The Grudge" followed right after. While it did nothing for horror fans, it did manage to scare the young teenage female crowd, as is the case with the sequel. Much like "The Ring Two", which lacked in scares, entertainment and a decent script, "The Grudge 2" just so happens to follow the same suit. Instead of trying to add to the original, it blatantly copies it and becomes nothing but a rehash of what made the original half decent.

There is just no originality in this film, everything it uses we've seen done before, and done better. It uses the same scare throughout the entire film. After the first 20 minutes, seeing naked albino little children walking slowly and making that eerie sound doesn't seem so frightening. It seems to rely too much on the jump scare, which gets predictable half way through. Instead of showing something really creepy and horrific, we get the something hiding in the distance scare. Whether it be behind a character in the background, or running across the back somewhere, we have all seen this before.

If you're a fan of any of the actors associated with this film, please save your money. Sarah Michelle Gellar gets a total of five minutes on the screen and about 3 lines of dialogue, which consist of, "Don't go in the house" and "Get me out of here". Getting into spoiler territory here, Gellar suffers the same fate as Jamie Lee Curtis does in Halloween Resurrection, end of the spoilers for you folks. Amber Tamblyn seems to have no idea what she is doing in this film; she only manages to showcase one emotion throughout the entire running time. All she does is have her eyes wide open and full of tears, along with her mouth wide open. That is basically what her performance consists of.

There are some random scenes that make no sense to me at all. A woman who regurgitates milk back into the container is pointless. In fact, that whole story line involving the family is pointless. You know that the Grudge follows the victims wherever they go, so you know who the person is in the apartment building. Is the end supposed to be a big shock moment? The film started repeating scenes from earlier, as if we are supposed to remember them and something big and surprising is about to show up. When it does, you roll your eyes in disappointment, or congratulate yourself for figuring it out 25 minutes into the film. Either or it's a big bore and what happens immediately after that is laughable.

All the deaths are pretty much the same, the small boy or girl grabbing the victim, and then cut to another scene. Nothing graphic happens to anyone at all, it does have a PG-13 rating after all. You feel absolutely nothing for any of these characters. I was more entertained by the old man playing peek-a-boo on the bus, then anyone else in this film. That is clearly a bad sign.

Where does the film do some good? Well, it handles the three different story lines well. You don't get too much of one and not enough of the others. The climax of the film was decent as well, inter cutting between the little boy and his family and Aubrey's story. You do get a small...very small sense of what's going to happen next feeling. It was also neat to see more of a back-story to the supposed Grudge that was left in the house, but if you would rather have it be a mystery then you'll be disappointed.

The Grudge 2 adds absolutely nothing new to the genre, it instead slaps it in the face. Nothing original, nothing scary and nothing good about this film ever came up. If you've seen the first one, then you've seen this one. Only difference is you don't need to be in the house to have the grudge come after you, you only need to be next to the person. After the original, people actually talked about it, saying how scary that sound was and that they couldn't sleep for days. You won't get any of this from the sequel, or probably even the inevitable third film, cause of course it has to end with that "There could be a sequel ending".

3/10

[nebbit]

Thanks, I will give Grudge 2 a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Flags Of Our Fathers (Clint Eastwood)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/flags_of_our_fathers/flagsofourfathers_beach.jpg


"Eastwood Delivers A Formulaic War Film"


Six men raised the American flag at Iwo Jima and the photograph that was taken became the most important photograph of that time. John "Doc" Bradley, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes are the only men left alive who were part of the photograph and encourage the rest of America to buy bonds in supporting the war.

Still flying high after his win from Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood teams up with writer Paul Haggis and goes after the Oscar once again, this time with Flags of our Fathers. I wasn't the biggest fan of Million Dollar Baby, it is vastly overrated, so I wasn't expecting the best with Flags, I didn't get the best either. While a lot of it works very well, it is just too formulaic and will not grab you emotionally.

Let's begin with the war scenes, which is how it opens. All the war scenes are told in flashbacks, which are scattered throughout the film, sometimes even in the most random and pointless parts. The battle of Iwo Jima is an astonishing. The gray and light blues used really add to the experience. It's realistic and honest, you feel like you are on Iwo Jima with the soldiers. The war scenes aren't as dramatic or brutal as Spielberg's war effort in Saving Private Ryan, but it places a close second.

The supporting cast shines here, unlike the leads. I really enjoyed Barry Pepper and Robert Patrick in their small roles. Adam Beach's performance is 50/50. His highlight is when he breaks down emotionally in disgust with what he has become. He never wanted to be a hero, but that's exactly what Americans see him as. He drinks his problems away, which is where the performance drags. He is either drunk throughout the film, or p'd off at himself and the other soldiers for "forcing" him to become a hero. No real range until the end, when it's too late. Ryan Phillippe doesn't really shine here either. He does a decent job, but nothing he does really grabs the viewer emotionally. You never really feel connected with any of these characters; I couldn't even keep track of half of them. If this was intentional because in amidst of the war you never know who or where anyone really is, then they succeeded, but at the price of grabbing it's viewer.

I mentioned earlier that the film's war scenes are told in flashbacks, some in the most random of places. This really hurts Flags, because it becomes really redundant (much like Beach's character). You'll have a war scene, then you'll come back to the men being praised by Americans, then back to a war scene, and we're back to the men being praised by Americans.... back to the war scene, you get the picture. You begin to lose interest in what is happening cause you saw it in the scene prior. Eastwood drags the film on in the final 10 or so minutes and you can really tell. There is nothing left in the story to tell, but the film keeps on truckin. Although, I thought they would end the film with the iconic image of the men raising the flag, I was also pleased with showing them swimming in the ocean, pulling back and revealing the American flag.

Flags of our Fathers will get it nominations, but I doubt it will win much. It looks beautiful and stunning, but it's repetitive structure and average performances hurt it in the major categories. Going into the film you would expect greatness, after all this is the guy who gave us Unforgiven, Mystic River and much to my dismay, Million Dollar Baby, but with Flags it seems that it is missing that one thing that could take it to greatness. With all it's potential, it's sad to see it miss a few steps.

7/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for a great review Sussy :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

SAW III (Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/saw_iii/_group_photos/shawnee_smith2.jpg


"SAW III Tries To Piece Back Together Missing Pieces In The Jigsaw"

Jigsaw, who is on his deathbed, gets his apprentice Amanda to kidnap a doctor, who is told to keep him alive or she will die. Meanwhile Jeff is the next person to fall victim to Jigsaw's game.

When choosing to see a horror film, one should not listen to what the film critics have to say about it. Usually they will tear the film a new one, simply because they're not a fan, or appreciate the genre. Horror is a genre for its fans, not it's critics. It's no surprise that the critics hate the third Saw film, but the fans rejoice around it. While Saw III is not the best film of the trilogy, it's not the worst either. Improving over the mess of a sequel that was Saw II, Saw III tries to piece back together missing pieces in the jigsaw and succeeds at doing so...barely.

While many thought that Jigsaw himself died at the conclusion of the second film, we were all wrong. He's still alive and kicking, well not kicking, but alive. It's up to Lynn, a doctor to keep him alive, for her sake. She is attached to a device that will blow up is Jigsaw's heart rate stops and she leaves his proximity. Sounds very "Battle Royalish". She is only a small part of a much bigger game that Jigsaw is playing. In a couple rooms over another victim wakes in a wooden box, this is Jeff. He is unwillingly (like everyone else) thrown into this game of life or death. His so called crime; according to Jigsaw is his inability to let go of the past. A car killed his son and Jeff has yet to let go of this, so he is sent on this "quest" to get to the man who killed his son. He must choose to forgive and save three victims, who all have their hand in his son's death, or let them die. Eventually all of this somehow leads up to the films end where it throws it's expected twist, which isn't as good as either of the previous films.

Saw II didn't go over so well because it took a different angle, and failed. SAW III does the exact same thing, yet somehow gets away with it, by an inch mind you. What made the original so compelling and unique was that it took place in this dirty bathroom. In the sequels, it's multiple rooms. This is a double edge sword; while it's neat to want to see what crazy contraption Jigsaw has in for us behind door number one, two or three...there is no real sense of urgency, or confinement. Jeff makes his way through room-to-room trying to save the victims, which include drowning in chopped up pig stuff, being frozen to death and being twisted to death, yup I said twisted.

The film picks up exactly where the second film left off, you could basically splice the two films together and watch one long bloody film, no pun intended. We see Eric, the detective from the second film chained up in the same bathroom; he tries everything to escape his chains and finally comes up with an answer. No, he doesn't saw off his foot like Dr. Gordon, he smashes it with the toilet cover and then breaks it. That was the one and only squirm in my seat moment for me, as the rest if really just blood and guts. Yes, Saw III is the bloodiest of them all; You'll get foot smashing as I mentioned, heads exploding, bodies twisting, freezing, suffocating...so on.

SAW III uses flashbacks to show us things that we didn't know about the first two films, such as the fact the Amanda has been in on it since the whole Dr. Gordon and Adam fiasco. She even killed Adam, instead of him starving which is what we were led to believe. Still to mention of what happened to Dr. Gordon though, but I'm sure we can all agree on him dying. Ever wonder why Adam and Gordon never saw Jigsaw breathing, somewhat explained here. These flashbacks seemed like they were here just to cover up plot holes found in the first two films. Yet they work in an odd way. It makes you want to pay more attention, whenever they go back to the previous films, you want to pay attention cause you start to think you may have missed something. Some of the flashbacks may take away from the earlier films, especially with Adams death.

The SAW theme music is here yet again, this time with a couple tweaks. It's the new remix, still has same effect, but possibly to a lesser degree. SAW III builds up to it's ending for awhile and once it finally hits you're left sitting there asking yourself if THAT was suppose to be the films huge twist. The twist is okay in it, but doesn't even compare to the sizes of our jaws after watching the first two. More then its blood and guts, it's a story about Jigsaw and Amanda, who become humanized with their emotional connection between the two of them. She cares for him and he cares for her.

There were many things that were left not answered here. Like who was the blonde girl in Jigsaw's dream, or what did the letter say that he gave to Amanda, why the hell did he pour hot wax on one of the tapes? Will these be answered in number 4?

I don't see how they are going to manage getting another film out, but they probably will. The Saw series will always be torturing new victims as long as we still want it to. Saw III will take you back to the beginning and will please the SAW fans and fans of something bloody, but don't expect to be surprised by their so-called twist at the end, it's a real stinker.

7/10

[nebbit]

SAW III (Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/saw_iii/_group_photos/shawnee_smith2.jpg

SAW fans and fans of something bloody, but don't expect to be surprised by their so-called twist at the end, it's a real stinker.

7/10

Ok I won't :nope: Thanks Sussy for your great review :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Night Of The Living Dead 3-D (Jeff Broadstreet)

http://zeguntherlover.skyblog.com/pics/521587409_small.jpg


"I Wanted To Be Hit In The Face With A Shovel After Watching This..."


We have yet another remake of the zombie classic Night of the Living Dead, this time with the new addition of being in 3-D. In this version, we have Barbara, who likes to be called "Barb" being attacked by zombies when a white BEN saves her by giving one of the zombies a close line. Ben takes Barb back to the Coopers plant farm. Once there we meet the rest of the victims, as zombies begin to attack the home.

If I hadn't won free tickets to see this film, I probably would never have given it a chance. Aside of it being in 3-D it doesn't really have anything else going for it. Upon first glance it would seem to be a direct to video, armature film student remake of the classic Romero film and that is exactly what the film comes off as. The only thing that made this film slightly enjoyable would be that it was fun to make fun of it. I couldn't tell if the film took itself seriously or not because there were a lot of times when the film was just so bad, that the filmmakers had to of known the cheese factor was through the roof. The thing that rules against this is that there isn't enough comedy in it for it to be considered a cheesy "B" movie.

The horror fans will notice Sid Haig is the one throwing his shovel around hitting the zombies in the face. He delivers an over the top performance, but then again when does he not? If it weren't for his goofy delivery in his lines the film would be rated even lower. The rest of the cast can be completely forgotten because none of them seem to care for what they are doing. Everyone is one-dimensional and half seem to have never been to acting school. There was no conflict between any of the characters that lasted more then one minute. Once there was some conflict it was solved mere seconds later. "I'm going outside!!!", "No you're not!!!", "Okay". Even the zombies didn't act like real zombies, I swear some of them were walking slowly like in the classics and others were as fast as hell, much like those in the remake of Dawn.

The gore in here is lacking as well. Only two scenes showcase any real gore, first is when a zombie is dragging itself to go after the little kid, he has no legs. The second is when Haig thrusts his shovel into a zombies face, it goes through his mouth and he sticks to the wall. The zombie effects were satisfactory for the most part.

I cringe every time I think about the dialogue, which throws in awkward pop culture references that shouldn't really be there...Scarface for example. Whenever I laughed in the film it wasn't with it, it was at it and most the time it was because of these horrible dialogue. More then 75 percent of the dialogue was unintentional humor.

The 3-D was painful, plain and simple. For some reason we're still stuck in the old days of red and blue 3-D glasses for this film. It took so much away from the experience. The red was very distracting and was all over in this film. I had to take the glasses off on five separate occasions because my eyes just couldn't handle it. They could have used the 3-D to their advantage, but dropped the ball here. Only a handful of things really "come at you", which include a bullet, shovel, glass and zombie hands. Nothing to really make the film more enjoyable, although I did get a kick out of the things that actually did come at me from the screen.

For some strange reason the makers of the film felt like they had to put in the original film, for what purpose I still have no idea. We know this is a remake of that film, is it ironic, or comedic in a way? No, it's just pointless and incoherent. They watch the zombie flick and know that these things attacking them are zombies, yet when one gets bitten no one seems to care or even know that he will turn into one. Did they just happen to forget that big plot device from the film that they were just watching? Don't even get me started on the continuity because this can rival the Evil Dead films.

Bottom line is that the 3-D isn't worth your time or money. You'll leave the theatre with a headache, from the glasses and the trash that's on the screen. I wouldn't even recommend this for hardcore horror fans, is just an insult. It doesn't look to good for zombie fans after this film hits theatres, or even when the remake of DAY does.

2.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Aeon Flux (Karyn Kusama)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/aeon_flux/charlize_theron/flux43.jpg


Aeon Flux Simply Put...Sucks


Aeon Flux is a deadly assassin working for the rebels known as Monicans. Flux is sent on a dangerous mission to assassinate the government leader Goodchild, but hesitates when he calls her by a different name. Flux gets imprisoned but later escapes and tries to unravel a mystery that has been going on for 400 years.

I never saw the anime this film was based on, but I can tell you right now it was probably visually stunning. With Aeon Flux, no matter how much it stayed true to the source material, is not visual stunning. In fact it's not a lot of things, good is being the prime example. I must ask this question though, what is it with Best Actress winners doing the most horrible pieces of crap right after their Oscar win? Swank, Berry and here we have Theron. Is it some kind of code they must take?

The film is not as big as it could have been or wanted to be. It has an epic scope written all over it, but comes up really short in it's delivery. The film opens with the usual sci/fi fare, with text written on the screen explaining to us what happened to lead us up to these events. Is this a requirement now for every sci/fi film? It's cool ideas within the plot are neat, but fail to capitalize with anything else, are get dragged down with the rest of this heap.

The film is a short one, clocking in at a whopping 90 some odd minutes. It's as if they just gave up half way through the film and decided to end it as soon as they can, this is evident in the poor acting, directing and overall feel of the film. What should have been a visual extravaganza with high octane martial arts and gunfire left right and centre, ends up being a child's film that takes it easy with the violence. The martial arts are uninspired and lack anything that would make the lead character dangerous. Sure there is a scene or two were the visuals do seem good, but given what the source material is, they could have done so much more.

I found myself rolling my eyes at the horrible dialogue given by the horrible actors. Marton Csokas, who you may remember as "THAT GUY" from xXx, The Bourne Supremacy and Kingdom of Heaven brings the film down so much with his monotone voice projection that you laugh at everything he says and does. Theron seemed to be only interested in the check that came her way and the fact that she got to look good after being uglied up for Monster.

Skip this sci/fi lite film, it takes good talent and wastes them (McDormand, Postlethwaite and yes even Theron). All the action scenes are juvenile, the acting horrendous and the script laughable. Pass this one when you see it sitting on the video stand and thank god that you will never have to watch it.

3/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

BORAT (Larry Charles)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/borat/_group_photos/sacha_baron_cohen1.jpg



"Borat Is Much Funnier Then Ali G"


Borat is a Kazakhstani television personality who heads to USA, the so called "greastest country in the world". In an attempt to learn more about the country to bring to Kazakhstan, Borat manages to upset almost every single person he encounters. While in America he develops an unhealthy obsession with Pamela Anderson and begins a quest to become her husband.

I have to say this right off the bat, I hate Ali G with a passion. That character is not funny one bit and every time I hear his voice I feel like punching a baby in the face. Now, Borat is another story. I've seen some of his skits on television and guess what...no punching of babies. In fact I smiled every once and while I yes a chuckle did happen. Once I saw the trailer for Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, again a smirk or two and a chuckle. Then all these reviews came pouring in: Funniest Comedy of the year, A fearless comedy, Riotously funny, and so on. So does BORAT make it as one of the funniest films of all time? Is it full of side-splitting laughter? Or is it just over-hyped?

Much like Snakes on a Plane, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, has you laughing at the title alone. Without even seeing the film you knew it would be funny and it is, although I do have to say that hype killed it. It is nowhere near the funniest film of all time. Of the last five years maybe? Well, I would put it high on the list, but I still find The 40 Year Old Virgin to be funnier, maybe because it was a smarter comedy.

The one problem with Borat is that while it claims all be set in "reality" it's quite obvious that some scenes are staged, the best example would be the final ten minutes of the film, with Pamela Anderson. While it is indeed funny, it takes away from the rest of the film because it immediately takes you out of it's reality. Yes, it is a film with a story to tell, even if that story is buried deep under it's randomness, but the feel of the film goes all over the place.

It's offensive, but in this day and age almost everything is. At no point did I think anything in the film was over-the-line or in bad taste. The film is on the heels of Jackass II for being crude. It's one more step towards what is excepted in the eyes of the movie going public. Both films contain male nudity, and in both cases they get laughs. In Borat, the nude wrestling match had me on the floor. It was definitely the highlight. Whether or not THAT particular scene was staged is debatable, if it were, you might ask yourself is it still as funny.

I found myself laughing off and on with Borat, more times it was a chuckle that a gut buster. Cohen does a good job at staying in character throughout the entire film, which is a short one by the way and ends faster then you can say the whole title. It does make for an entertaining watch, just don't go in thinking that it is the funniest thing ever cause you will be disappointed.

7.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Belly (Hype Williams)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/artisan_entertainment/belly/nas/belly.jpg


"I'd Rather See Paris Hilton Win An Oscar, Then Sit Through This Again"


I can't really give you a plot outline for the film, since I was beating myself in the face with a blunt object every ten minutes. Although, I can tell you the little bits that I got from it. Two gang members are living the high life, with sex, booze, drugs and money. Soon they both realize that they are heading down the wrong path, one wants to go back to Africa to get in touch with his roots, and tries to convince his girlfriend to join him, while the other gets all religious.

I was told to watch this film because it was, and I'm quoting, "The Black Scarface". Let me say that this is not anywhere near the calibre of Scarface. The one and only way I can ever see someone making this strange comment would be because in one particular scene, they directly ripoff Scarface. It involves a man who is on drugs seeing on video cameras strangers entering his house. He grabs guns and then goes on a killing spree. Exactly like Pacino in Scarface. he guy doesn't even make it out alive, he dies, like Pacino from behind.

Nothing in this movie is worth commenting on, I'm hurting right now trying to write this review because I have to think about the film. Why is it that rappers think they can have an acting career? LL Cool J can pull it off because he is actually decent at acting. The people involved in Belly give Busta Rhymes a run for his money as worst rapper actor. DMX, who is in random martial art flicks (Cradle to the grave, Exit Woods) is playing the exact same character he does in every other movie. Seen one, seen them all. Nas for some random reason wants to go back to Africa in the film, I found myself on the floor in tears, both fro laughter and sadness. I don't think he raises his voice once in the entire movie.

Hype Williams, is a music video director. He directs rap videos, which is evident here because this movie is just one big overly long rap video. If Williams were to have more films under his belt, he may be able to reach Uwe Boll's credibility. Yes, this movie is worse then House of the Dead, or even Alone in the Dark. I rank Belly as the second worst film I have ever seen, the worst goes to the atrocious Carnivore.

There is no substance to Belly, it tries to be all style. The opening sequence is ALL that bad, but it isn't good either. My entertainment level went from mediocre to negative zero after the first robbery. It never recovered and I'm kind of ashamed to admit I've seen this trash. Belly gives Showgirls and The Matrix Revolutions a run for their money for the worst sex seen in cinema history. It's over before it begins and you can't make out what is even going on.

With a horrible script and director that has no credit to his name, you'd think the movie would be bad...but this goes beyond that. It's as if when the director had nowhere else to go with the movie he would throw in random shootout scene, simply to add more minutes to the already too long running time (which isn't even that long, but it sure as hell seems like it). Nobody in the cast makes an effort to entertain us or even try to be remotely believable. Here's a suggestion for Williams and his future film making, if there is any future film making. Get real actors, not your friends. Also, try filming a movie with a decent script that is easy to follow. Belly goes all over the place with random events. More then once I was sitting there wondering who this person was and why they are on the screen.

So if you happen to see this sitting on the shelf at your local video store, do yourself a favour and rip out your eyeballs for even looking at the box cover. The only thing that this is good for is taking a bat to it, or flushing it down the toilet, maybe even leaving at a friends house in hopes it will never come back. I was haunted in my dreams the week after watching Belly and every now and again I get a headache when someone mentions the film. I'm taking Tylonol Extra Strength right now finishing this review up. Let's just hope the so called sequel never sees the light of day.

0/10

[Iroquois]

Man, that sounds so bad that I actually want to see it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Wolf Creek (Greg McLean)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/weinstein_company/wolf_creek/kestie_morassi/wolfcreek3.jpg


"A Film For Fans Of The Genre"

After visiting Wolf Creek, 3 backpackers get stranded when their car won't start. Luckily a truck comes by and a man offers them his help. The parts needed are back at his camp and they decide to go and stay the night at his place. When they wake up, they find themselves tied up and tortured. Can they escape from the middle of nowhere?

It's no doubt that Wolf Creek doesn't appeal to everyone. It's premise has been done over and over again. Upon first glance it would seem nothing more then a typical horror film that comes and goes quicker then someone's 15 minutes of fame. Well, this is the case with Wolf Creek, but it has some redeeming qualities. Basically it's not that bad of a film. There I said it. Why am I saying it? Well, I'm a fan of the genre that's why and that's who this film will appeal to fans of the genre.

Roger Ebert gave this film a negative review, in fact he gave it the big fat zero, which I think isn't fair. You just have to look at his ratings of other horror films to know that he's not such a big fan of them. In his review he goes on to say that this film has crossed the line. I sit here asking myself, what line is that? Maybe I've seen too many films that are sadistic and cross the line, Cannibal Holocaust for one. This film didn't affect me in any way; in terms of shock or horror. Instead it focuses on tension to grab the viewer and the tension in the film works.

Greg McLean, in his first feature film, does a good job at giving the fans what they want. Never did I think that this guy was an amateur and had no idea what he was doing. McLean comes out with a decent flick, despite the low budget. Which in my opinion gives more of a danger type atmosphere. They are stranded in the middle of nowhere; if it were too clean cut it would lose that atmosphere. Unlike Hostel, who's sole purpose was strictly violence, gore, and making the viewer uneasy; whether or not it worked it up for debate, Wolf Creek does more then that. In Creek we get to know the characters, and for me actually like them (well, the guy anyways, the females were boring).

Sure there are parts that make you roll your eyes, such as the killer being in the exact same car as the female, but you have to expect that from this film; it's part of the genre. Some may be disturbed by this, which I can see, but it doesn't go out of it's way to try and disturb you, unlike Hostel. Creek doesn't try too hard to freak out the viewer, instead it builds up the suspense and tension until the viewer can't take it and for once, actually want the victims to live. John Jarratt, who is clearly the highlight of the film, gives a haunting, comedic performance. Never in a film have a rooted for the bad guy and the victims at the same time.

Creek does have its problems, but it isn't as bad as people are saying. With crappy remakes such as The Grudge, Texas Chainsaw and the upcoming Black Christmas coming up, it's nice to see someone trying to take the genre in another direction. Instead of relying on scares, blood and guts, it relies on tension. Now I'm not saying the film is blood free, it certainly has it's fair share of face cringing scenes. If you like horror films, give Creek a try. Just don't expect the killer to walk around with a machete.

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Click (Frank Coraci)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/click/_group_photos/adam_sandler5.jpg


"They Could Have Made It Really Funny, But Went With The Message At The End"

Michael is an architect who works way too hard and can't seem to find time for his family. With too many remotes around the house he decides to pick up a universal remote to try and make his life a little easier. This is where he meets Morty, who works in the way beyond department. He gives Michael a remote that is "beyond" it's time from a technical stand-point. Michael soon finds out that not only can it control the television, but the universe around him.

Frank Coraci and Adam Sandler have worked together before; the results being The Waterboy and The Wedding Singer. Both films were quite funny and let Sandler do his usual yelling at everyone routine. Now they have hooked up for a third time and the result is "Click", a not so overly funny film that tried to jump emotional gears left, right, and centre.

While watching "Click" all I could recall was how everyone cried in the final moments. I'm sitting here asking myself, why? Sure the scenes do tug at your tear ducts, but in this type of film you know exactly what the ending is going to be and guess what, that ending happens. If you know in the end everything is going to be okay, where is the emotional value in that? Sure I felt sad that he couldn't say good-bye to his father and sure I felt sad when he was lying there on the ground dying, but I didn't cry. I don't see where all these tears are coming from. Either I'm missing something, or the audience is just more emotional these days.

In a film that has dogs humping ducks, an obese sandler groping his "****", and flatulence jokes you can't really have the sappy ending this film does. I don't buy it. "Click" needed to stay in one frame of mind and not waver back and forth and teach us a lesson at the end of it. Numerous times I was reminded of Bruce Almighty here, it's basically the same film but one features a remote control. Both films showcase a dog with problems, a hot wife and a comedic actor being able to control everything around him. The difference is Bruce Almighty had so much more fun with what it had. Ask yourself what is funnier, Jim Carrey making Steve Carell look like an idiot on television, or Adam Sandler farting in David Hasselhoff's face? For the record, a dog humping a duck is only funny once, not a dozen times.

It takes a special guy to save a film like this, and luckily for the filmmakers Walken is that man. Christopher Walken steals the show as Morty, the guy who gives Sandler the remote. In every scene that he's in, he has this comedic tone to him that just gets to you, and you can't explain it. As for Kate Beckinsale, sure she is hot and sure she can play the wife role, but did she really do that much? Nope, instead she decides to run off with Sean Astin...speaking of which, is he going to be the next Adam Sandler Cameo Buddy?

I can only recommend this as a rainy day viewing. It's not the best, or the worst Sandler film. It does have some funny moments, Henry Winkler is perfect in the dad role and of course my main man Walken steals every scene he is in. You may even cry at the end, apparently, that's what I've been hearing. In the end, you most likely will end up disappointed with the fact that they didn't really do much with what they had. So much potential in the concept of a universal remote and it's wasted on Sandler's selfish doings. Instead of going outside the box and making a crazy flick, it plays it safe and does exactly what was shown in the trailers. On a side note, if you've seen the trailers, you've seen most of, if not all, of the comedic parts. So enjoy the film as much as you can.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Break-Up (Peyton Reed)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/the_break_up/_group_photos/vince_vaughn1.jpg


"This Stuff Passes For Comedy These Days?"

After a nasty break-up between Brooke and Gary, the two decide to try and make the other's life miserable, in hopes of keeping the apartment. Gary doesn't see things unless they are blatantly said or put right in front of him, so he can't tell that Brooke still wants to be with him. All she wants is for him to appreciate what she does. Does Gary learn this in time? Or will he lose her forever?

Wow, see how the plot description went from something comedic to something dramatic in a matter of seconds, well that is exactly how the film plays out. After all the controversy surrounding Mr & Mrs. Smith, the so called big guys behind the desks in Hollywood decided to try and score money with the re-bound. Jennifer Aniston has a movie too, and look she is with a new guy too, it's Vince Vaughn...and he was in Mr & Mrs. Smith. Oohhhh, the controversy: Go see the movie. That is what I heard every time I saw something advertised for The Break Up. Still to this day I hear them and after watching the film I can see why. It's because it's a piece of trash.

Why did Vaughn associate himself with this material I will never know, but not even he can save this film from the terrible crash it was heading for from take off. With an awkward opening you can tell immediately what you're in for. A money grab film that if it weren't for the two main actors in it, would probably never see the light of day. Vaughn plays his usual fastball comedic style, but it falls flat a lot of times, especially when he says anything remotely funny, you realize you already saw it in the trailer. Aniston had comedic timing down pat on friends, but that was with the character of Rachel, here she has nothing, does nothing and accomplishes nothing. She is pretty much useless. Aniston does nothing to try to go above and beyond the material, Vaughn at least tries. Here she gives minimum requirements and collects her paycheck, then watches as the media spins everything and then she has a hit on her hands.

Not even the supporting cast can save the film. Other then the one or two times I smirked at Vaughn, arguing with the kid online was decent, the only saving grace would be Jon Favreau. I guess being long time friends with Vaughn paid off in this flick because their chemistry is the only thing that works. Joey Lauren Adams is the best friend and Justin Long is dreadfully annoying as the "is he gay" assistant. Bateman who usually gets a laugh out of me, 95% of the time it was on Arrested Development, again, sorry to say, adds nothing here.

Will you laugh? Probably not, the first half of the film tries to be funny, but guess what, that's right you got it, you've already seen it. The second half is drama and it hits you out of nowhere, much like Click does. This is it's probably and it suffers, just like Click did. It had no idea what type of film it wanted to be. A romantic comedy? comedy/drama? They should have thrown in some kind of horror element and maybe I would have enjoyed myself a bit. If you have Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston in your cast, who are both very funny people, you need to use them to their full potential. Hell, if the Break Up used them at even half, or a quarter of their potential, maybe we wouldn't have such a travesty on our hands.

Am I suppose to connect with either of these characters? Are the males suppose to connect with the guy in this war? Ditto for the women? I don't know and nor do I care. When the ending came, which tries to be different but just ends up being a cliché, you see it coming a mile away. Then the final scene jumps on us, to try and tie things up. Guess what, I hate to tell you it, but it really doesn't. They seemed to just rush an ending at us. Hey they meet again say what they've done and walk off. at least it has something in common with the opening scene, it's just awkward.

So in the end, skip on this flick. If you see it on the shelfs in the stores, do someone else a favour and destroy that copy. Yes Jennifer, Baby want twelve lemons, but hey this baby wants his time back.

3/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

United 93 (Paul Greengrass)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/united_93/_group_photos/becky_london1.jpg


"A Film That Is Honest And From The Heart"

United 93 tells the events of September 11th, 2001. It was the only hijacked plane that did not make it's final destination because of it's passengers who decided to take control of the plane. I sat and watch United 93 and Stone's "World Trade Center" in the same session. While both films did tug at the emotional scales, United 93 seemed to be a more heartfelt film.

Greengrass, who's other films include the just as serious "Bloody Sunday" and spy flick "Bourne Surpremacy", takes on the difficult task of retelling the horrific events of that day. With no mainstream actors, a relatively small budget and the controversial topic, it would seem that the film was doomed a failure before it was even finished. Alas, it got the approval from the families and people who said that it was "too soon" actually went to see it. There are many words one may use to describe the film: respectful, powerful, humanistic, but you can't really describe it to anyone, they must see it for themselves.

Why does the film work so well? It chooses to show us the story and not shove it down our throats. We know what happened, but not how it happened. We will never know how it happened, but United 93 gives us a suggestion. Greengrass chose to use a relatively unknown cast and it works. There are no big name distractions here, these people are not being paid big bucks to star in films, which is the sense I got in "World Trade Center". Although, you might recognize a face or two, at one moment I was saying to myself, "Hey, it's that guy from The Mummy". There were only a few moments in the film where the acting was pretty bad, mainly in the military scenes. That one blonde woman was horrible, but this did not ruin the film.

It was interesting to see the intensity of the military personal and flight control centers doing what they do. I can only imagine it was ten times more intense that day then what was depicted. You get the sense of urgency in these scenes, a sense of realism. Everything was pulled off nicely. Seeing the mentions of the other planes was a good way to broaden the drama. I was pleased the film wasn't solely concentrating on United 93, which was another problem for Stone's piece. I was surprised to see actual footage of the planes hitting the towers to be shown and applaud Greengrass for not shying away from it. The use of inexpensive hand-held cameras at to the urgency and realism that was needed. If the production was any bigger, it would have ruined the effectiveness.

The film doesn't show us the heroes from that day, instead it shows us how human they are. In the final chilling moments of the film when the passengers are trying to take over the plane, there is no "hero" shot of one man overcoming evil. Instead it is raw anger from these passengers and their need to save their own lives and the lives of others. The film ends on a perfect and chilling note of what they saw. We are not watching them crash, we are there with them. The heart pounding score increasing the tension and the intensity of the actions. There are no post-dramatic events to show, no air traffic control scenes trying to explain what happened. A beautiful ending to a powerful film.

Here's a film that tells us to look back at that day and remember those who died. It's not one to shy away from a serious topic, instead it confronts it head on. The film was given the go ahead by the families from the passengers on board. No one should watch United 93 as a "film", but more of a look back on that day. It's a respect piece to those who died. Not a tale of survival of any kind, other then the fact that we as people survived that evil and continue to live on.

It's safe to say that United 93 is one of the most important films of 2006 and probably of the last 5 or so years. Not only does it honour the family members of those on the plane, but the rest of the people who experience something that day; everyone experience something that day. There is no character to identify with, they are all equal, all human, all just like us. Everything that happens is in the moment, no one knows what is going on, but audience. Everyone should give this film an honest open minded viewing. It is important and will only grow to be more important with time.

8.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Casino Royale (Martin Campbell)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/casino_royale/daniel_craig/royale3.jpg



"The Only Bond Film In Which I Enjoy The Opening Credits"

James Bond has just earned his "00" status and after a mission here and there, finds himself sitting at a high stakes poker table against the villain Le Chiffre. Bond joins the dangerous and sexy Vesper Lynd, who is funding his end of the game and he must come out on top.

After seeing a little film called Layer Cake, I thought to myself, "Wow, this guy would make a great Bond." A few months later they actually announced the new James Bond and guess who got the gig, Daniel Craig. I thought that this was a terrific choice and that the fans would love it, but boy was I wrong. The only feedback I heard was negative, a blonde hair, blue eyed Bond? Could it be? People were so outraged they even created a "craignotbond" web-site. Of course, all of this happened before the film opened and once it did everyone seemed to change their tune. Everywhere I went I heard that, not only was this the best Bond film ever, but the Craig was indeed one of the best Bonds. All I have to say is...I told ya so.

I was never a big fan of the James Bond films. I've seen a few when they would appear on television and I grew up with Brosnan as my Bond. So out of the few Bond films that I have seen, I can say that this tops the list. I would go as far as saying it has sparked my interest in seeing the films because I know that this film decided to go in another direction. I'm thankful it did. Casino Royale is the first Bond film in which I actually enjoy the opening title credits. Usually I'll be sitting their bored out of my mind with the theme song playing, but here I was digging it.

Is it more "real" then previous installments? Well at first I would have said no, since that chase scene, as spectacular as it is, was off the wall in realism. The half man half monkey guy jumping everywhere wasn't too realistic to me, but I'll take that to an invisible car any day. Guess what, Bond makes mistakes too. His ego gets in the way of his goal and takes the audience along for the ride as well. Craig pulls off a convincing Bond, with an attitude unlike the rest of them. His charm and charisma shines throughout and I'm happy to say that my first choice was the right one. Let's hope we see Craig in more installments to the new franchise. With little in side jokes for true Bond fans, and blatant ones for people who just know his name, the film appeals to everyone. It's intense, thrilling and above all enjoyable.

The beautiful and seductive Vesper Lynn is played dangerously and seductively by Eva Green. Playing well of Craig and adding a little bit of ego to herself can hold her own in the scenes. The villain, although not as over the top as almost every other villain is average here. What makes the Bond films so fun is seeing how insane these villains are. There is always that one thing about them that makes them crazy enough to be a Bond villain, here it was missing. Sure he has one eye and the other one cries blood, but what does that do for us? Nothing. As unrealistic as those villains may be, they were one of the main things that made those films so good, and taking that away isn't good for anybody.

One little gripe about it though, would be that is slows done to a halt in the third act, which gave me the signal that it was wrapping up and everything was going to be alright. Then out of nowhere comes this scene with guns blazing and buildings collapsing. I thought the film was over, then it went on for another 30 or so minutes. Although, the last 5 minutes of the film are indeed that damn good.

Bond is low on gadgets this time, and only one short car chase scene, which is fine considering it is his early career. Most of the tense scenes come from Bond sitting in a chair. He's playing poker of course, but sitting in a chair nonetheless. I enjoyed the action scenes and the films really tops the charts as one of the best Bond films and of the year. Much like Batman Begins and Superman Returns, we have a winner on our hands that is taking an old dying series and breathing new and exciting life into it. I'll be sure to see the next film, in which Craig can only better himself as the one they call Bond...James Bond.

8.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/rocky_balboa/sylvester_stallone/rockybalboa5.jpg

"Balboa Is Like Remembering The Past With Old Friends"

Rocky Balboa owns a restaurant called Adrians, named after his wife who has passed away. Rocky is old now and lives his life telling old boxing stories to his customers. His son has the unfortunate task of living in his shadow, as everywhere Rocky goes people want his autograph. A computer puts a match between Rocky and Mason, the current undefeated heavyweight champion. This match gets people talking and encourages Rocky to come out of retirement for one last time.

Rocky Balboa has many good things going for it, but it just doesn't have that one spark that the rest of the series has. For one, it isn't the best film in the series, for the other it's a perfect ending to the series and for the Rocky character. Rocky Balboa is a film that takes us back, back to that era when people were chanting that name and running up those stairs. The film feels like your sitting down with a bunch of friends and recounting the fun times you've had and places you've went. We know and love the character and it's sad to see him where he is today, with all his glory in the past. Much like the fun memories that we have, that are in the past.

Balboa feels more gritty and real then the previous films, it has that Million Dollar Baby feel. A little too real if you ask me. The climatic fight scene is short and no where near as suspenseful as one would hope for. Rocky is indeed old and past his prime, this is evident in the fight. Rocky doesn't take a beating and he doesn't give a beating either. The Rocky films were set in an obtuse reality. The fight scenes were so obvious that they would never happen in reality, one only has to watch Rocky fight Drago to know this. But that is what made the films good. The tension is all gone in the final fight because everything happens slowly and it's over sooner then one would think.

Balboa packs the most emotion since the original Rocky film. The film isn't really about boxing, or overcoming great odds, but more of Rocky's life after his success. Whereas the fifth film failed at this, Balboa succeeds with great strides. People will like this movie because it has the exact same feeling as the original. Films 2 through 5 had Rocky at the height of his fame. He was in his prime, had the title shot and has the belt. Now, much like the original where he was no one, Rocky is too old and is considered a joke in the eye of the media.

Fans of the series will not be disappointed. Much like the title character, its audience has also grown older. We are right there with Rocky remembering the good old days with Adrian. Stallone is indeed getting older and it is more evident here then ever before. He was never really a good actor, but here he manages to show some talent. Burt Young gives a good humour supporting role. Although, Everyone else attached seems to be lost. The films so called villain, Mason Dixon, is no where near any other opponent Rocky has faced. With the likes of Apollo Creed, Thunderlips, Clubberlang, Ivan Drago, hell even Tommy Gun, Dixon is the worst. The character has no qualities about him that make him stand out at all. Again, this can only be counted for the "reality" that this film is set in. If you want to see a Rocky film with a Million Dollar Baby undertone, Rocky Balboa is the film you want to see. If you walk in expecting unrealistic fights, vibrant colours and over the top villains, Rocky Balboa will disappoint.

The series was getting tiring and almost dead, Balboa is the perfect ending to it, because it has that same feeling, but at the same time manages to inject some life. Balboa features the classic training scenes and theme song and will give you goose bumps like the old days. Rocky and Stallone have finally let that beast out from within. Stallone can now feel content that the series has a proper ending and if you're the kind of person with an emotional heart, you may even shed a tear. I recommend Balboa for those who want one last match with the 'Italian Stallion'.

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Smokin' Aces (Joe Carnahan)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/smokin__aces/_group_photos/brian_bloom5.jpg


"Smokin' Aces Is A Blender Baby"

Buddy "Aces" Israel is being targeted after snitching on the mob. The amount on his head is a staggering one million dollars. Now every hit-man and woman want a shot at it.

If I were to ever make a film, Smokin' Aces is the type of film I would want to make. Although in my mind, my film is also 100 times better and wins a crazy amount of Oscars. Aces is a film that is not really original, but it does what it sets out to do and that is entertain. Sure it's not the perfect film, but it never tries to be. It suffers from a poor ending, too many characters and it becomes too Hollywood for it's own good. With everything that's wrong with it, it's also good. Carnahan delivers the film with a unique style and the film will definitely entertain. The film is not original, it takes bits a pieces from many other films: Pulp Fiction, Snatch, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, any Tony Scott film and last years Lucky Number Slevin. Throw those films into a blender and you get Smokin' Aces. While Aces never reaches the greatness of those films it is good and deserves a chance. Listen to me and not those other uptight critics.

Aces does have too many characters, the film takes a good twenty minutes to introduce everyone, but once you see them and are given that brief back story you don't need anything else. Are you suppose to connect with these characters? Aside from Reynolds and possibly Piven himself, the answer is no. You don't try to get to know these characters, you know they are contract killers and that's all you need to know. Instead you root for one of them, whoever you think is the "coolest" or most "badass". The characters are indeed diverse and over the top, you have: Ben Affleck as a bail bondsman, his two friends who are ex-cops, Bateman as a sleazy lawyer, two femme fatals, three insane Nazi like guys known as The Tremors, a torturer who doesn't torture anyone in the film, a man who changes identity and masks, Buddy Piven Israel and his crew, Reynolds and Liotta as the two FBI agents and their superior Garcia. Seems like a lot of people and it is, but you won't get confused as to who's who at any point.

If I were to cut out some characters, the film could do without the kid and his granny, along with Israel's manager/lawyer. Instead give that screen time to more action. There I said it, the film could use a little bit more action. Don't get me wrong, the film does showcase enough violence to please the usual film goer, but I couldn't help but want a little bit more by the time the film was over. Speaking of which, when the film ended, it seemed like they didn't know what they wanted to do. So they threw in that trying to trick you bit that fails so many times when not done right. Half way through the film you know what the twist is and when they reveal the real reason behind the hit, it kind of ruins the rest of the film. Carnahan and his crew could have ended the film with a wrap up for each character, it would have better suited the film, but we are left with no explanation of what happens to whom.

Now onto the whole "Too Hollywood" bit. You know in films when something happens to a character and you think they are dead? Only to discover they live at the end? Well that kind of happens here. Granted it's not as shocking as the other films, but it does become annoying. In one particular scene, two character shoot the living hell out of one another in an elevator, yet they don't die at the time, instead they live for another twenty minutes. Another character gets shot in the face, yet he lives. Aces also suffers from the "Hollywood Minute". This usually affects films that deal with bombs that are about to explode in 5 seconds, but it last for 2 minutes. Well it kind of happens here with certain characters. For example, one character is in the room with Aces and it's his mission to take his heart, which is what every hit-man must do. Well, he gets in their and kills the one body guard, then the film cuts to every other character. Twenty minutes go by and the same guy in that room is just putting his gun away after killing him.

Everybody in the film does a good job with their characters and it was nice to spot those familiar faces in the cast, such as Matthew Fox from Lost fame and the one hit-man who people will recognize from Suddenly Susan. While the comedy doesn't really last throughout the entire film, it's Bateman who steals the comedy with his sleazy lawyer role. He delivers every line with comedy gold.

Carnahan, who's previous film was Narc, has a unique visual style and it's present here as it was with Narc. Now Aces isn't as good as Narc, but that's only because these films are so diverse. Aces isn't set in any reality, this is evident throughout the entire film. None of this would ever happen in real life, so you know to just sit back and relax and enjoy the mayhem that appears. Piven plays his usual fast talking dirt bag character, only this time he has a few card tricks to flash the audience. Reynolds and Liotta work well together and Reynolds is the real standout in the entire cast. I would recommend this film for anyone who wants a good entertaining flick in which they can just sit back and enjoy the action.

7.5/10

[Sedai]

Great reviews Suspect.. I am going to peg some for the main page!

[John McClane]

I didn't like Smokin' Aces at all. I'd have to say the comedy was some of the best stuff in it and the action was pretty decent. Everything else was just kind of like blah. I was going in expecting something better then what I got. Big mistake. Good review though. :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Letters From Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/letters_from_iwo_jima/shido_nakamura/letters3.jpg


"Humanizes Everyone In The Time Of War"

"Letters From Iwo Jima" tells the story of the Japanese soldiers who fought on that island against the Americans. The story is told from multiple perspectives of the soldiers, all writing letters to their loved ones.

In my review of Flags of Our fathers I claimed it was too formulaic and unfocused. Letters is Eastwoods second time around with the same story, but from the opposite side. This gives us the result of a courageous film that is beautiful and bold, heart-wrenching and honest, and finally an Oscar worthy picture.

Letters out does Flags in every way possible. Not once in flags did I have any emotional connection with anyone, or did I care who lived or died. With Letters I connected with everyone, in their own unique way. The soldier who only wanted to go home to see his wife and baby, the general who wishes he could have washed the kitchen floor before he left, even the Kemeptai soldier who was so desperate3 to go home that he surrendered to the Americans. On that day these soldiers were the enemy, in this film we see who they really are. This film honours the men who fought in that war and not the government of Japan, who was the real enemy.

Truth be told, they were as much the victims of war as we were. Eastwood depicts this perfectly, in one scene the soldiers in one mountain cave were ordered to kill themselves. Imagine being he one to have to do that. In what was probably the most intense scene (of many) the remaining soldiers blow themselves up with their hand grenades as they cry in fear, remembering their loved ones before they die. In letters the Americans are the enemy and the language barrier is evident. After one soldier surrenders to the Americans, who is shot, along side a prisoner, simply because the two soldiers believe they will be sitting ducks with these two beside them. If a soldier was considered a coward, then they would be executed by the sword. The true horror of war is depicted in Letters and not Flags.

The film flows more smoothly then in Flags, where we would have random flashback sequences coming out of nowhere and serving no purpose. Here you can tell when they will flashback and the importance behind each one. Flags had beautiful cinematography and colours, Eastwood brings the exact same feel to Letters and it's just as beautiful. These colours connect the two films and the two opposing sides, they both fought on the same ground. With Eastwoods hand held camera movements in Flags I had no idea what was going on and my head felt like a top, again in Letters he betters himself and let's us actually see the action, while still containing the feel that it's crazy in there.

The film is in Japanese with one or two scenes spoken in English. As with Passion of the Christ, it adds to the experience of the film and puts you there. In films like Enemy At The Gates, where the Russians and Germans all spoke English, you feel like you're watching a movie. In the one of two scenes were English is spoken, a Japanese General reads a letter written by the mother of one of the American soldiers. The Japanese soldiers listen and understand that the Americans are not the ruthless monsters they were told, but in fact human. Just like them and they don't want to be on the battlefield just as much as they do. Everyone in the cast deliver honest and powerful performances. Watanbe, who is more comfortable in his native language; captures the screen in every scene he is in, playing both a strong minded general and a soft hearted human at the same time. He doesn't want to fight, but he wants to honour Japan at the same time.

The film does fault itself though. It is a very long film that kind of dragged itself to the finish line. I did find myself thinking that it was a long movie and when you start thinking that, it takes away from the overall enjoyable experience. Eastwood could have easily cut out one or two moments when the character are "writing their letters" to keep the film at a good running time. The second thing is something I would have liked to have seen added myself. I would have liked to have seen more connection between the two films. Sure in Flags we see that the Japanese in pieces all over the caves and we finally see why, but other then that and a few battle scenes that are used directly in both films there is not much else. Where was that one scene in Flags where the kid disappears from underneath the ground? That would have connected the two films better, to see one of the Japanese solders crawling up a tunnel and kidnapping a soldier. Hearing Phillippe's voice above ground crying out where the other soldier is, this would have connected the two better.

Letters is an excellent film with the message that no matter what side you're on in war, it's hell. That's exactly what I got from this film, and yes even Flags. Letters out does Flags in every way possible and betters its chances for that Oscar gold. It's one of the best war films ever made. It's not a perfect film, but it is the one that Eastwood wanted to make and it is exactly what the title says, it's actually Letter From Iwo Jima.

9/10

[Escape]

Nice review Suspect. I saw I believe a twilightzone episode similar to where the American soldier was cursing the otherside and loved to kill the enemy but was instantly transported to look like a Japanese soldier where he actually was able to see the human side of the enemy as his American friends were trying to kill him. I can't swear it was the twilighzone though but one of those types of shows.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'll have to check that outy Escape. Thanks.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Half Nelson (Ryan Fleck)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/thinkfilm/half_nelson/ryan_gosling/halfnelson1.jpg


"A Gripping And Career Defining Performance From Gosling."


A junior high school teacher who also teaches the basketball team has a problem...a drug problem. Dan Dunne's life is a mess; he lives alone in a crummy apartment and is on the short end of an addiction that has a hold on him. After one of his students finds him in a stall of the girl’s bathroom high on drugs, they form an unlikely friendship that raises a few eyebrows.

Ryan Gosling was the only reason to watch the short lived television show "Breaker High". From there gosling went on to bigger and better things, with supporting roles in both "Remember The Titans" and "Murder By Numbers", he was making a small name for himself. Gosling went under the radar and it was his disturbing turn as a Jewish neo Nazi in "The Believer" that had me thinking that this young actor actually had some acting chops. In the field with other names like Paul Walker, Josh Hartnett and Orlando Bloom, Gosling managed to not be just another pretty face. He become a household name for young females when he and now girlfriend Rachel McAddams both turned in romantic performances in "The Notebook" Now Gosling is under the radar again with "Half Nelson" and receives a much deserved Oscar nomination.

Gosling is a talent to watch, as his hones his craft he will no doubt receive the coveted Oscar in the future. In "Half Nelson", Gosling manages to pull off a complex and gripping performance that is honest and brutal. In the hands of any other actor the character of Dan Dune would fall under the clichéd drug addicted and the film itself would fizzle out amidst the hundreds of other films that came out in 2006. Gosling gives a quite and intense performance all throughout, that gives off a small hint of strung out and on the edge, and this man can erupt at any moment. The emotional connection that Gosling has with young newcomer Shareeka Epps drives the film into an uneasy, yet comfortable feeling. The relationship on the surface would seem inappropriate, yet we go along for the ride as if nothing is wrong at all. We feel comfortable with these characters being together. Gosling drives the film with his powerhouse performance and raises the bar for the rest of the cast in the picture.

Fleck sees a lot of handheld camera movements throughout, grounding the film in reality. The story itself takes place on the streets, thus the viewer feels uneasy. There are few steady camera pans and many close-ups and the characters faces. We get a close relationship with these characters; we see them for who they really are. In the scene where Drey sees that the last drug deal is in fact her teacher, we get a close-up of both their faces; we see that Dunne is at the bottom of the barrel. We also get a close-up of Drey, stunned and disappointed with her supposed friend/teacher. Another scene would be when Drey first discovers Dunne's drug problem in the bathroom stall. Embarrassment, shame, loneliness, compassion, and humility are all evident in Gosling's emotion and you need the close-up of his face to capture this emotion and feel how real it is. As Fleck's first big motion picture, you can see his inexperience, but every shortcoming is overshadowed by how good the film is.

While the film itself has no real plot or direction, it's story is centred around it's characters and that makes for a gripping character drama. Most character driven films tend to stray from being entertaining into complete boredom. Half Nelson is an exception; it keeps the viewer enthralled and brings them along for the ride that is Dan Dunne. He is spiraling down and ending his road. He has to change his life; the only thing that is keeping him from going completely over the edge is the kids. The ambiguous ending leaves the viewer to make up their own mind as to what Dunne's life ends up being. He shaving his face is his rebirth, a new start; Dunne is trying to get his life back on track, but there will be bumps in the road, which is exactly what Drey meant by the statement that he missed a spot.

The film doesn’t keep up to the same pace as Gosling, but it isn’t too far behind either. Half Nelson is one of those films that is under your nose and you have to look around to actually find it, but when you do you will be thankful. Nelson is a film to watch for its honest performances, not so much its directorial features. Don’t let this small gem of a film slip through your fingers.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

300 (Zack Snyder)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/300/300_pile.jpg


"300 Joins The Matrix, Star Wars, and Citizen Kane As Films That Changed Cinema"


Based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300" centres on the 300 Spartans that defended their freedom with their lives against an army of thousands.

What can one say about “300” that hasn’t already been said? One simply has to watch the trailer to know exactly what they are getting themselves into when they go to see “300”, a visually stunning film that piles the bodies high and blood splatter higher. Without a well known cast and a director that only has one film under his belt it would take something impressive to attract people. The “300” trailer did just this, as hype of the film spread like wildfire throughout the internet and months before it’s release was being hailed as the next big thing in cinema. Well, the film has finally arrived and it’s safe to say that you can add it to the list along with: “The Matrix”, “Star Wars”, “LOTR” and “Citizen Kane” as films that have changed the way we look at cinema.

“300” opens with a back-story to a normal starting life of a Spartan, if the baby is born too small or too weak, it’s literally tossed off a cliff. Taught to fight as early as he can walk, the Spartan must learn to be tough and leave no room for weakness. Every Spartan must go through a test, in the film’s case it was against a wolf. This has been done for years and you get the sense that these guys are serious. The film has two different stories, one is the obvious: 300 Spartans vs Persian Army, the other is The Queen back in Sparta dealing with the fact her husband might die. It's her duty to get more soliders out there to his aid, but not everyone in Sparta is supporting her cause. Now, it doesn't take a genius to know that most of the story centres on the battle and everyone will want the story to centre on the Spartans. It seemed to me that the point of the queens story is to take deep breaths so the viewer can regroup themselves.

“300” is the second film based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. “Sin City” generated the same amount of hype across the globe and has its own unique visual style. If “Sin City” was the first step into the next generation of film, then “300” is a giant leap. Its beautiful colours are enough to draw an audience regardless of the films quality. Lucky for us it’s not just its visual style that makes the film good. Shot entirely on green screen, Snyder is able to create a world full of muscular Spartans, ugly monsters and violent battle scenes, creatively and effectively. The tans/yellows of the battle ground provide a great backdrop for the red coated Spartans. Boy, does that red ever jump out at you too.

Knowing the history of Spartans, the film is not totally accurate, but it gets the basics down. These warriors were born to be fighters and nothing else. The filmmakers intended to not be historically accurate in order to give an entertaining film, and it works like a charm. This is something “Troy” and “Alexander” suffered from greatly. Hearing the story that only 300 men defended themselves against thousands upon thousands could raise a few eyebrows. That’s until you see these warriors and their lifestyles. They don’t have normal professions back home. They’re not blacksmiths or carpenters, as one character says, they’re warriors, that’s their profession. These men were meant to fight and the actors look spot on. Gerard Butler, whom I only recognize fro the Tomb Raider sequel, embodies what a Spartan is. Here’s a guy who made me believe he was an actual Spartan. He has just the right amount of honours and leadership to command the army and the film; he does so with ease. Hidden behind a beard and his helmet for most of the film, Butler pulls off a great performance of a man who is not afraid to be on the front lines in battle. It’s an honest performance that could take some by surprise, if you think the film is only about yelling Sparta every couple of seconds, you’re only half right.

Snyder is quickly becoming a favourite of mine. Here is a young guy with obvious talent, who took on two difficult films that had an audience before the film was released. Creating a worthy remake with “Dawn of the Dead”, Snyder tackled this project head on. Working on digital only enhances the creativity this guy can bring to a project. Only time will tell if he can solidify himself in the business with his next undertaking of “The Watchmen”.

Much like Miller’s other work, “300” is a brutal film that doesn’t let up with its content. The film tells you point blank that it’s going to be bloody violent and it actually keeps its promise. Only once or twice does it slow down for some dialogue, to let the viewer settle down after watching an onslaught of violence. The violence is stylized, mixing fast and slow motion left right and centre. The blood is CGI and legs, heads and arms do fly off at every corner. But the violence is stylized so much, that in the end the gore factor doesn’t seem like a lot. You know you’re watching gory images, but it doesn’t send chills down your spine, instead you simply think, “That was cool”. The entire film plays out like a wet dream to every movie aficionado, video game player, comic book reader (sorry graphic novel reader) out there. It’s a shame that Alan Moore hasn’t had as good a time at the movies as Frank Miller has, graphic novel adaptations need visionary directors. Snyder is one of these visonary directors that can only grow with more time and expeirence.

I totally recommend “300”, for anyone looking for a visionary film and who’s not afraid of violence on the screen. It’s a roller-coaster ride that only ends when the screen turns black. The final moments of the film gave me goose bumps and there are too many beautiful scenes to name one as my favourite. “300” earns its R rating; it’s a hard nose slobber-knocker. The body count is in the thousands and the blood is in the gallons. For a fully enjoyable experience, one should see this on IMAX. If you really want to know what “300” is like, it’s basically the trailer, extended past two hours.

9/10

[John McClane]

Wow, you just made my 300 review look like crap. :laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

You Me & Dupree (Anthony & Joe Russo)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/you__me_and_dupree/owen_wilson/dupree.jpg


"You, Me & Everyone Else Can Skip This One"

After Carl and Molly get married in Hawaii, they come back home to start their new life together. It just so happens that Carl's best man, Dupree, lost his job due to time he took off to go to the wedding, thus he finds himself with no home and no money. Carl being the best friend he is invites Dupree to stay at his house until Dupree gets his feet back on track. Things don't go according to plan as Dupree quickly becomes a burden and the stress of Carl's new job and his step-father as his boss is taking a toll on him.

Coming off his success of Wedding Crashers, Owen Wilson quickly pumps out another comedy in which he plays the same loser character with a heart of gold. Only this time he doesn't have the safety net that is Vince Vaughn to bounce off of. Thus driving You, Me, & Dupree to enter the same category of, ironically, Vaughn's other film, The Break-Up. To say this film is original is laughable; just about everything that happens has happened in other funnier comedies. It goes about the formula with a check list and doesn't really bother to add anything to the mix. The film even has the wacky, cool because he's an old school actor type character, Michael Douglas and of course the montage to show he's back on track segment with Dupree.

From directors Anthony and Joe Russo, who have had their hands in the hilariously funny television series Arrested Development, one would expect some form of hilarity to be present. This is not the case, as the film only gets some chuckles here and there, mostly from Wilson himself, in particular when he is being chased by a security guard. Even though Wilson does indeed play the same character here as he does in just about everything else, he does manage to be the best thing. I was expecting more from Dillon, with comedies such as "There's Something About Mary" and "One Night at McCool's" one would expect something more out of him, but he plays it straight here. Every now and again I would get annoyed with his character, as it seemed he had no idea what he was doing. Next to Hudson, he has the most serious role.

Speaking of Hudson, her screen time is severely lacking and what little time she does have, she does nothing with it. Hudson is adorable, but brings nothing to the film. Hudson is basically the only female in the entire film. The only other females that have any significant roles are hidden. Mandy, the woman of Dupree's affection is never shown. Even the wife of their friend, Neil, is never shown, only blurred in the background. I don't fully understand why the directors chose to do this as any significance is lost on me. Michael Douglas seems so out of place here and really sticks like a sore thumb. His lines were suppose to be comedic, but came off really flat. Douglas seemed to not get the part, he plays it seriously, but with the material it just comes off weird.

Unlike "The Break-Up" which was completely flat and horrendous, Dupree manages to get a few chuckles in here and there before it exits. Don't look for originality anywhere, because you won't find it here and the supporting cast does a horrible job at accompanying Wilson. Nothing really clicks here, it's all cramped together to see if something good came out at the end. Only one scene is really memorable at it doesn't happen until the end. Wilson can be really funny, if the supporting cast is able to keep up with him and stay on the same track, you only have to watch Wedding Crashers or The Royale Tenenbaums to notice this, with Dupree it's a sinking ship and Wilson can't seem to swim all too well.

4/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Grindhouse (Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/grindhouse/_group_photos/rose_mcgowan2.jpg


Everything I Could Ever Want And More In A Film.

Grindhouse is two films in one. The first film is “Planet Terror”, directed by Robert Rodriguez, of “Sin City” and “Desperado” fame, the second is “Death Proof”, directed by Quentin Tarantino, of “Pulp Fiction” and “Kill Bill” fame. In a nutshell one is about zombies, while the other is about a mad man. Put them together and add fake trailers before and in between and you have yourself the most fun you’ll ever have at a movie theatre this year…and years to come no less.

If you are reading this review then I’m assuming you have some vague idea of what a grindhouse film is, if not, look it up then get back to me. For those familiar with the cheesy B movie genre, you will know exactly what to expect, for those who’ve never seen a grindhouse film, well, let’s just say you’re in for a surprise. “Grindhouse” is a full blown, in your face orgasm that never ends; and when it does you don’t want it to. Tarantino and Rodriguez pulled off exactly what they promised; delivering a film that is not only a fun experience, but a hilarious, grotesque, thrilling, chilling and maybe even vomit inducing experience. It’s hard to say which film I liked better; they both have their own unique style and cheese factor. Instead of deciding which film you like better, how about you just take it all in and enjoy the entire thing.

Right from the beginning we get a small taste of what the rest of the film has in store. The film starts with the “Machete” trailer, it’s over-the-top in every sense of the word and if you get the joke, you’ll love every minute of it. The entire film is full of nods to the genre, whether it be random posters in the background and a character wearing a shirt with the cover of “faster pussy cat, kill kill” on it. I’m not the biggest fan of grindhouse films, as I’ve only seen a few, but “Grindhouse” has definitely opened my eyes and has ignited my thirst for more. While I have seen a few grindhouse films, I can safely say that “Death Proof” has a more grindhouse vibe out of the two. Its look and feel was more gritty, while “Planet Terror” was simply carnage on the screen.

“Planet Terror” has more humour and gore out of the two, which would be expected from the trailers. It has zombies and a woman with a machine gun for a leg. If you can’t laugh at a guy who takes people’s testicles who double cross him, or a sex scene in which a wooden leg makes an appearance and then the reel suddenly goes missing, then why the hell are you watching this movie? “Death Proof” was more intense out of the two, one particular scene has one character hanging onto the hood of a car for her life and Stuntman Mike tries to run them off the road; it’s exciting and scary at the same time.

Kurt Russell stands out in the whole cast, from both features. His homicidal and caring take on the psycho is chilling and funny. My only complaint is that he loses his badass factor half way through the “Death Proof” segment, as the girls turn the tables on him and chase him down. Rose McGowan, Tarantino, Marley Shelton and Michael Parks all make appearances in both films, with Michael Biehn making a small appearance in one of the faux trailers. Rounding out the rest of the cast is Freddy Rodriguez, Josh Brolin, Rosario Dawson, Naveen Andrews and Tom Savini, to just name a few on a list that goes on and on. There are a few more cameo spots that I won’t ruin for you, but they are quite comical.

The faux trailers themselves are worthy enough for stand alone films. In some cases the trailers themselves are more gruesome then the feature films. Leave it to Eli Roth to do something like that, his “Thanksgiving” trailer is where people will either laugh their heads off or vomit into a bag. Zombie’s outing is “Werewolf Women of the SS”, which showcases Nazis, werewolves, and naked women. Edgar Wright supplies us with the third trailer, in which it tells you “Don’t see it alone”. Out of all the trailers, I was most impressed with Rodriguez’s “Machete”, because no one messes with a Mexican, and Roth’s “Thanksgiving”.

The gore factor is high and in full drive here. Without a doubt this film will have you either cheering for more, or well, cheering for more. Is there ever such a thing as too much gore? Not in this homage to exploitation flicks of the 70’s. If you honestly think there is too much gore, then why are you watching this film? It tells you up front that is about horrific violence, sexuality, and drugs. This film has a checklist and knocks everything down as it runs it course…its three hour plus course. If you’re sitting in the theatre rolling your eyes at the ridiculousness of what is being shown on the screen, again I ask why are you here? Nothing in this film can be taken seriously, nor should it. Things aren’t suppose to make sense, that was the beauty of those films from back then and the directors know this and capture it perfectly. Both films do have a missing reels segment, both happen at parts where something sexual is about to take place.

Being a horror movie buff makes me appreciate the film on a whole new level. Both Tarantino and Rodriguez show that they can handle the genre and this time they’ve raised the bar. If you thought SAW III was gory, just wait till you see this flick. Everything, from gun shots, to stab wounds in “Planet Terror” has blood gushing left right and centre. Bodies are torn apart, faces fall off, testicles are cut off and fall off, people explode fingers are bitten off, people are shot, so on and so fourth. In “Death Proof” the deaths, which are few all happen within the vehicles. Dane Cook will be happy to see there is a scene in which a female character takes a tire to the face. Along with that, another gets thrown out of a car, someone loses a leg and another gets their face smashed in.

Everything just clicks in “Grindhouse”, from the score right down to the blood smears on the faces. The scratches on the film reels do not distract at all, instead it adds to the overall experience, an experience that I haven’t had at a theatre in a long time. Out of the two, real grindhouse fans will probably like “Death Proof” out of the two and the gore hounds will no doubt lean towards “Planet Terror”. The bottom line is we get two no holds barred, kick ass horror films for the price of one. “Grindhouse” brings back the feelings that were once lost from the movies. “Grindhouse” beats out “300” as the most fun you’ll have at the movies this year and probably for awhile.

10/10

[Bill]

Thanks for the review.. It make me want to see it even more.

[JBriscoe]

Grindhouse (Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino)

10/10


nice!! going to a midnite showing tonite...sooooo excited!

GREAT REVIEW!!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Hot Fuzz (Edgar Wright)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/rogue_pictures/hot_fuzz/_group_photos/nick_frost11.jpg


"By The Power Of Greyskull, This Is A Funny Movie!!!"


Nick Angel is the top cop in London, with arrests that are 400% higher then anyone else in his department. This doesn't look so good for everyone else, so the decision to ship him off to a small village is made. Angel arrives and finds it difficult to cope with the lack of real crime and the lack of policing in the village. Not until bodies begin to pile high does Nick suspect something sinister is up and about and he goes an action rampage trying to solve this mystery.

If the names Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright sound vaguely familiar to you, then you've probably seen the overly funny "Shaun of the Dead". After the release of that film, it became an instant cult classic that ran a thin line between comedy, romance and horror. Now these guys are at it again, this time in the buddy cop action genre. It's safe to say they've knocked it out of the park, yet again. It's refreshing seeing talent delve into more then one specific genre, which can only mean bigger and greater things in the future.

Hot Fuzz does for action films what Shaun of the Dead did for horror. Bring a unique comedic style and touch to a genre that has been done to death and somehow manage to pull off a great film. Just like Shaun, Fuzz has the same actors making an appearance, where some are in cameo roles like Bill Nighy as the Chief Inspector, right down to the two main stars themselves; Pegg and Frost, who are a perfect comedic pair together. Much to my surprise there were two more cameos, I don't want to give them away, but look closely at the Santa Clause who stabs Nick and his masked girlfriend.

From the beginning of the film you can tell that Wright is behind the camera. The quick action cuts of every little thing (from taking your jacket off to putting your keys in the door) is done in such a fast paced way and so often, that it has somehow become his 'trademark', much like Tarantino with his trunk shot or Scorsese using Gimme Shelter. In Shaun this was used a couple of times, but here it's in almost every scene, yet it somehow compliments the film. When you're homaging and parodying action films, everything should be exaggerated, tightly shot and quickly edited. Even the small things like grabbing the telephone is done in an 'action film' style.

For film buffs, it's neat to pick out the references to other films, that are literally scattered throughout Fuzz. If it's not blatant and in your face like Point Break or Straw Dogs, it's subtle and only spoken. "Forget it Nick, It's Sandford". Obvious reference to Chinatown. The reference range from genre to genre. Horror and action films are the main targets, and it's hard not to crack a smile when the final fight scene reminds you of Lethal Weapon.

The townsfolk all play their parts well, with James Bond himself, Dalton, standing out as the devilish supermarket boss. Seeing these townsfolk being so ordinary and timid make for the climax of this film even more enjoyable. The climax itself is the entire third act of the film, which is where most of the laughs are, which is unfortunate. Unlike Shaun, that kept the laughs consistent, Fuzz goes on and off. In the scenes where the laughter is off it tends to drag on a little. This hurts the film cause these scenes could have been cut, making the film shorter and having more of an impact on the viewer. After a slow start, and a off and on funny scenes for the body of the film, it takes something special in the final act to bring the movie into greatness. Hot Fuzz has this and more in it's gun blazing, car chasing, blood splattering, third act.

It's quite right to say that Wright and co. brought their horror specialties to Fuzz, as so many scenes seem like they could have been brought right out of a horror film. All of the deaths are bloody and jaw dropping; as in I did not expect it to be so graphic in this style of film. Fuzz has a hint of Shaun at every corner and of course every other buddy cop movie as well. It's horror aspect played well throughout the film, paying off in the end and of course making another reference to a well known horror film that has it's own cult following.

Pegg takes a drastic turn in this film, from playing a loser that's afraid of everything to a bad ass with impressive sharp shooting schools. With Frost playing the same type of buddy sidekick with a thick skull. This time though, Frost manages to pull off some kind of pity feeling for the character. You feel sorry for him, but you don't know why. Maybe because he looks up to Angel so many times and acts like a big gorilla.

In the end, Hot Fuzz indeed delivers the laughs and the action, which is all saved for the third act. It doesn't reach the greatness of Shaun, but it manages to separate itself from it and for that I can recommend it. It will drag on for some, but others will have a fun time picking out all the references to other films. Enjoy the film for what it is, a funny look on the action genre. With more then enough people and car flying in the air in slow motion from 4 or 5 different angles to please Bay fans. Fuzz is definitely worth checking out.

8/10

[nebbit]

Thanks :) I loved Shaun of the Dead so I will certainly see this one :yup:

[Pyro Tramp]

Did you miss the Alan Partridge cameo? Just IMDBd the Santa cameo, completely missed that one! I'm sure Hot Fuzz as a far greater appeal to British fans since the mere setting and characters are so spot on they can't help but amuse, especailly when most are quite well known British talent. From your review, the cultural capital Brits have opposed to American viewers makes it far more enjoyable.

How did you find the fact they pointed out the homages they were making before they did them? I'm undecided if it was good for characterisation or because they might have fallen flat without reminders.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Spiderman 3 (Sam Raimi)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/spider_man_3/_group_photos/tobey_maguire2.jpg

"Spidey Is Back In Black, Third Installment Is For Fans Of The Films, Not The Comics."


Peter Parker plans to marry MJ, but being Spiderman is getting in the way. To make things worse a meteorite falls from space carrying an unknown substance that has a life of it's own, which soon attaches itself to Peter. Can he battle his inner demons as well as the new villain Sandman and Peter's old friend Harry?

In my review of X3, I faulted it for it's inconsistency with the comics. It would be unfair if I didn't do the same for Spiderman 3. Sam Raimi and co are back in this third installment of the mega box office franchise and have tweaked the comics a bit to create more of an emotional impact on the viewer. Unfortunately any emotional scene is ruined by the cheese factor that emits from the screen. When characters try to be heartfelt, bits of laughter came out of the theatre. Spidey is indeed back, this time in black. It will definitely please fans of the films, but comic lovers may end up disappointed when the credits begin to roll.

I had high hopes for this film, the first was good and the second blew me away. Hearing Church playing the Sandman and that the black Spidey suit was going to make an appearance I couldn't resist my eagerness to see the film. Then rumours of Venom being in it came up and I got even more excited, could my geek fanboy dreams be true? Then mention of Gwen Stacey circled the internet and I began to ask myself how the heck are they going to pull this off? Can they fit in Harry's revenge, The Sandman, Venom, Dark Spidey and Gwen Stacey all into one film that won't run over three hours? Raimi tried his best to give each segment enough screen time to resolve itself by the final scene, but it all proves too much for him to handle.

Let me get my fanboy nitpicks out of the way first. Venom. Venom is, in my honest opinion, ruined in this film. Raimi was hesitant in putting this villain into the film and it shows, he seems like a last ditch effort to get more people in the seats. Something they created in post-production to get more word of mouth circling. Was the Sandman not enough? Venom came and went quicker then Jon Lovitz career. Most of the time it's Eddie Brock's face rather then the creature Venom. This isn't what the fans wanted. Secondly, we all know that Flint Marko (Sandman) did not kill Ben Parker, here he did. Reason for this change? To make him seem more important then he actually is. They took a cool character, played well by Church, in the small screen time he does have, and made him boring, non threatening, and ultimately not as cool as previous villains, like Doc Ock. Any emotional impact that Raimi was aiming for is ruined by the shoddy acting and cheesy dialogue. Gwen Stacey, as well know was Parker's first girlfriend, not here. Again changed by the creators the add more of an emotional impact. She is suppose to create a riff between Peter and MJ. This works, but the fanboy in my doesn't like it so much, but it's something I can get passed, just like I can get pass the lack of a white spider on the black spiderman. Again, fanboy nitpicks.

Back to the film. There is way too much going on for anything to have significant screen time. The fight sequences with the Sandman never reach the level of excitement when Spidey was fighting Dock Ock and it's quick fighting scenes interwoven with the slow dialogue spoken by almost everyone makes for some awkward pacing. Spiderman and the Dark Costume is too much to be stuff into as a sub plot. They did a decent job of handling it, but it could have been so much more. None of the villains ever really seemed threatening. If Venom had more screen time he could have been more of a threat.

There is next to no chemistry with Dunst and Maguire this time around. This could have been done on purpose, but it really ruined the believability that these two are lovers. If it weren't for the first two films would we ever guess they were together? Franco's role here is an awkward one. He is not menacing at all, and his scenes with him having no memory come off comedic and inappropriate. Also Maguire turns emo on the us when he's suppose to be 'bad' Seems like a lot of bad stuff went wrong in this film, but that's not really true. All in all I enjoyed this film. It was a good addition to the series. Better then the first film and only falling a hair short of the second. With more emphasis on the villains and what the substance from the meteorite was, this film could have easily been the best comic book film ever. So what was good about it your asking? Well, everything else.

Watch out for those cameos, Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell both make an appearance and both received applause from the audience. Campbell who's scene here is the funniest out of all three films is the comedic highlight. I always have a smile on my face when he graces the screen. Speaking of comedy, this film has a lot of it, some intentional some not. Parker pulls off a Saturday Night Fever moment half way through the film which is, I can only guess, a reminder of the "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" moment from the second.

Special Effects and action sequences are top notch. My favourite action scene is still the Doc Ock train fight, but it's obvious Raimi was trying to top himself here. Everything in this film is on a bigger scope. The action sequences stand out more then the fight sequences. Seeing Spiderman save Gwen from falling, through debris and what not, was a treat. Even if Spiderman decided to save her and not stop the machine (watch film and you'll understand). The fight scenes leading up to the final climatic battle are short, but good nonetheless. Plenty of aerial fights, with both characters falling to the ground while still battling it out. A surprise stand out fight sequence I have to give to Harry VS Spiderman. It was the most ambitious of them all.

Is Spiderman 3 a disappointment? Yes and No. I expected a lot more out of it and only got half of it. The half I got, I was very pleased with. The film had so much in it, but not enough time for any of it. Raimi's eyes were bigger then his stomach. He wanted bigger and better, all he got was bigger. With everything that happens, you can forgive it because it is after all a comic book film. Yes, the man who killed your uncle can get powers, yes a meteorite can fall right beside your hero, it's all a comic book film. I can recommend the film as it was entertaining and did it's job on delivering action, but there is that little voice in the back of my head that wanted more.

8/10

[Pyro Tramp]

Nice review. Agree on lots your points. Did you think the meteorite crash was very similar to Slither? And yeh, Peter Parker joining My Chemical Romance was, well, concerning.

[Bill]

Did you miss the Alan Partridge cameo? Just IMDBd the Santa cameo, completely missed that one!
I knew who was the masked girlfriend at first, but I didn't know who was the Santa.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Didn't catch the Alan Partridge cameo.

Yeah, I the first thing that came to my mind was Slither, regarding the meteorite. I really dislike how it just came from the sky and had no explanation what so ever.

[nebbit]

Great review Sussy :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

1408 (Mikael Håfström)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/1408/john_cusack/1408_3.jpg

"The Shining For 2007"


Mike Enslin makes a living as an author, who specializes in the paranormal phenomenon. After receiving a postcard saying DO NOT STAY IN 1408, Mike becomes intrigued. After much hassle and waring from the hotel Manager, Mike finally makes it into the room. What at first seems to be a normal hotel room, turns into a horrific nightmare and Mike only has one hour t0 live.

There have been many films based on Kings writings. Some of these films are terrifying, such as IT and The Shinning; while others are terrifyingly bad, Dreamcatcher anyone? The latest film to be added to the list is 1408 and lucky for us it belongs to the former. 1408 works on many different levels and even throws a twist to the audience. While it's not the best King adaptation it certainly is one of the better ones and deserves to be called The Shining for 2007.

In the era when so called horror films are full of SAWS and HOSTELS, it's refreshing to see some new blood being pumped into the genre. 1408 pumps a whack of blood and a whole lot more. The film starts off as one would expect, with Mike investigating one of his routine spooky places, then goes on to show his life as a writer with not so many fans. We get a sense of loneliness with Mike, he has lost something. Cusack plays the character well. For those who think they can't get pass the fact that it is John Cusack, I assure you you will not think about it during this film. His performance is a complete 180 from his previous work and I give him credit for pulling it off. Cusack goes through a wide range of emotions through this film, most of them being on the terrified side, but everyone of them is believable. Sure there are many other actors out there who could have pulled off this role, but Cusack does a fine job. Which is a really big thing that this film depends on, because there is virtually no one else in this film. The supporting characters are lucky is they get 10 minutes of screen time. Tony Shalhoub, of MONK fame is only in one scene and Mr. Jackson shares the screen with Cusack for just about ten minutes...to explain the horrors of the room, then he's gone.

Håfström, whose work I'm not too familiar with does an excellent job of bringing King's short story to live with a vivid and creative imagination. He manages to keep the audience on the edge of their seat throughout the film the moment the terror starts. The film's intentions are not to scare you with the "jump" tactic, but tries to pull something deeper, the kind of scare the builds and builds until you can't take it anymore. The entire time we are in this claustrophobic room and we know danger is looming, but we can't escape. We are stuck in this room because Mike is stuck in this room. We know the dangers ahead, we want out, he doesn't. The cinematography is beautiful, especially considering it takes place in one room. From the icy cold snow to the green walls and even the burnt aftermath of destruction, the film is beautiful no matter what is on the screen.

Cusack talking into his recorder acts as his mind trying to grab any sense of reality in this evil room. Trying to debunk the true horrors of what is actually happening. Those true horrors are psychological. One minute something spooky is happening, then next everything is normal. This mind game has been done before and before and here it's brought to the next level. Everything that happens can instantly change. One minute you can be walking in the room full of snow, then next your trapped under water. Being confined to this one room with this one character places tension on the audience as well. We don't know what is going to happen next, but we know it's not good.

There is somewhat of a twist in the film, I won't give it away, but once it happens you see 3 things happen and in this order. One is disappointment, the next is predictability and finally excitement that what you predicted is true. During this third part of things that happen, the scene in which everything is thrown back into focus is superbly done. Kudos to that scene as it is one of the best in the entire film. The main characters life he thought he had all of a sudden comes tumbling down, literally. This whole segment does slow down the pace of the film, but it fits perfectly into the psychological torment of this character.

In the end 1408 is an excellent film that will send shivers down the spines of those wanting a good scare. If you're sick and tired of the played out genres of SAW or HOSTEL, 1408 is something new and exciting and actually good. You won't get much from anyone other then Cusack, but what he brings to the table is indeed a good performance. Every corner and every room within 1408 is something that you will have to see for yourself, you never know what horrors lie next and that my friend, is a good horror film.

8/10

[Bill]

I totally agree with you. I thought it was interesting.

[TheUsualSuspect]

SiCKO (Michael Moore)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/weinstein_company/sicko/michael_moore/sicko1.jpg



"SiCKO is Moore's most depressing documentary film yet and will no doubt start discussions"


With any Michael Moore film it's hard to take what he says at face value. There are so many two faced scenes in his other films to believe him and his biased ways. Yet his views are views shared by millions of people. Once again Moore shows the United States in it's most inane state and gives us his most depressing documentary film yet, that will undoubtedly get people talking.

With Moore's films it's always hard to review because you have to look at it from two perspectives. One is from the political stand point, the other is obviously from the technical standpoint of the film. Either way you look at it, the film is outstanding on both accounts. Moore has just as many haters as he does lovers and this film is no different. There will be people who praise it for it's message to the American government to change their ways, while others will condemn it for its praise of other countries and the "facts" it presents us. Bottom line is any documentary you see is going to be biased, Moore's films are no different. I myself live in Canada, so I do get free health care, technically, so I can't really begin to understand the horrors of what Americans with no insurance go through, I can only go on by what this film and others have shown me (John Q anyone?). But it seems that the message in all of them are clear, that whatever it is the government is doing, it's not working.

Moore compares the health care system of America to other countries, such as Canada, France and Britain. The one contrast that sticks out in my mind is when a man from the States had the tips of two of his fingers cut off, he had a choice: Save the middle tip for $60,000 or the ring finger for $12,000. The man chose the more romantic and cheaper finger to save, the tip of his other finger was thrown away into the dump. A man from Canada had it even worse, all of his fingers were cut off during an accident, at the knuckle. He went into surgery for approximately 24 hours and they were all saved and his has motion in all of them. This cost him nothing. This is the same predicament (one wasn't as bad as the other though) and the outcome was totally different.

A woman who went bankrupt and was forced to live with his daughter has to pay $240+ for drug prescriptions, which she can get in Cuba for about 5 cents. If America if the richest country and the world an its citizen always seem to proclaim that it's the greatest country in the world; then why is this happening. Why are rescue workers from 9/11 not getting the treatment they need because they weren't on the government payroll? Does these atrocities make for the greatest country in the world?

Moore makes Canada, France and Britain seem like heaven compared to the States. I know that not everything is peachy in the other countries like Moore claims, but they are doing something right, morally and financially. The wrong people are in the powerhouse positions in the government. A man from Canada in this film said one man changed the health care system in Canada, if it only takes one man to change something, why isn't anyone stepping forward in the States? If they are, why aren't the citizens helping to push him into power? I don't know all too much on the policies in the States, or even Canada for that matter, but the taxes Canadians pay go towards health care. Taxes Americans do not pay. If this system would begin in the States, would would happen? Can they afford it after what has happened recently with the Bush Administration? These questions are raised by Moore and by people who've seen the film and who will see the film. These questions should be asked and should be answered.

The film itself is depressing and done with the "Moore fashion". I liked both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, SiCKO can be added to those films as one that is not only thought provoking, but entertaining. The dark sense of humour Moore adds to the film helps keep it afloat from its bleakness. Mainly his entrance to Guantanamo. SiCKO is Moore's most important film because it speaks out to everyone in America. Bowling was targeted towards a small percentage of people, and Fahrenheit was really just an Anti-Bush film, SiCKO speaks to everyone. As everyone needs health care, everyone should see this film and change the system.

The facts Moore presents (true or fudged) is an eye opener. For people to be denied such things is a crime. Greed is what makes America the most hated country in the world, Greed for money. Money is what is keeping these people sick. Unlike Moore's previous films, SiCKO doesn't stay with one subject for too long, Moore goes through dozens of people and their problems within minutes, to illustrate how many people this effects. The film doesn't stay with them long enough to pack high emotional punches, but enough to give a shock to those who had no clue what was going on.

They say laughter is the best medicine, for the people of America, I hope his is true.


8/10

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy, :)
I must see The Shinning for 2007 sounds very interesting and scary :yup:

As for Sicko any film that highlights the problems in health care is ok with me :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Changes to the SUSPECTS ratings system is in effect. In keeping with the sites style, I will be rating a film out of 5 instead of ten now and use the popcorn as my score.


Live Free Or Die Hard (Len Wiseman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/live_free_or_die_hard/bruce_willis/diehard6.jpg



"The Best Action Film Of Recent Years"


In the year 1988 there was a man running around a high rise building with no shoes on. In 1990, this same man was running around again, this time in an airport fighting a guy who likes to pose naked in his hotel rooms. Then in 1995, this same man drove around NYC trying to solve numerous riddles. Now the year is 2007 and this same man now must stop hackers corrupting the United States Government and the entire country. Sounds pretty rough to us, well it's just another day in the life of John McClane.

Before the release of this film, many die hard DIE HARD fans (like that one eh?) were up in arms over not one, not two, but numerous things about this flick. One, would be the absurd PG-13 (14A) rating, whereas all the other DIE HARD films had R ratings, this was the first film in the series without it. Two, McClane's so called sidekick was a MAC...sorry I mean Justin Long. Third, the man behind the lens was Len Wiseman, whose resume was UNDERWORLD...and it's sequel. Finally Willis was old, pass his 50's old, could he still have the McClane charm and make it believable? No, things were not looking all too well for the next DIE HARD film, that is until it was finally released and blew everyone away. Myself included.

I will admit I was never head over heels in love with the first Die Hard film. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but not the be all to end all action film that everyone made it out to be. I give it credit for what it did, which was start a trend of films that would later be called " Die Hard On A.....Die Hard In A...." Those titles go for films such as SPEED or Sudden Death. I prefer Vengeance to be honest. Throughout the series to settings grew bigger and bigger, from a high rise building, to an airport, to a city and now the entire country. Live Free Or Die Hard is ambitious, violent, funny, and clichéd. So what I'm trying to say here is that it's the best action film of recent years. While CRANK tried it's best to inject live into a dead genre, it's this film that finally did it.

First off, the PG-13 rating will have no affect on your views for this film. you're too busy being blown back into your seat to even notice. The film has dropped the F-bombs, but has thrown in more bombs itself. Live Free or Die Hard is the most violent of the Die Hard films, and yet it probably shows the least amount of blood. It's the 'action violence' that sets it apart. Everything is taking place on a grander scale, making everything seem more significant and bigger then ever before. Die Hard was the one of the first films to be deemed the "Ultimate Guy Flick", Live Free or Die Hard is one film that is challenge that role. It so desperately wants to be the ultimate guy flick and it almost succeeds.

This film does what it does best, entertains. I guarantee you, that you are going to see this film for the action. You will not be disappointed. It is above and beyond in action. It even plays on the old tired action film clichés, which brings it into a self parody, but that's okay because will all know that no one is taking anything seriously here. Just listen to the plot to know that, don't even have to mention the car crashing into the helicopter scene. It's the clichés that actually bring the film higher. You know from the beginning that his 'partner' is going to be the wise-ass, guess what he is. Long serves as the comic relief, the young and hip kid to Willis' old and tired McClane. His daughter, who wants nothing to do with him will need her father in the end, as she will be kidnapped and the dad must do what he does best to get her back. The main villain being in love with a woman who is also one of the main villains. Not to mention the series famous catch phrase.

No one in this film is getting an Oscar anytime soon, but they play their roles to their beat. McClane is his joke spewing self, who shoots more bad guys in one day then most cops do their whole lives. Long plays his comedic young counterpart with just enough humour and just enough fear to play into the old/young relationship clichés. Winstead as the daughter who hates/loves her father and even Olyphant as the bad guy with the cold dead menacing stare.

I don't know what it is about the old beloved character, but with Stallone's Balboa and Willis' McClane, it seems that old things never die. It's up to Ford and his fedora to see if we can make it three for three. The film is about 30 minutes too long, but with all the action on the screen you won't care. This is a summer flick that actually delivers on it's promises. Boom, Boom, Boom. One gripe I have though is that there is so much action going on that not one scene particularly stuck out in my mind as the "DIE HARD" scene. In the original it's the jump from the explosion, with hose wrapped around him. The sequel is the cockpit ejection and third is the cable jump to boat. This film, even in it's jet-plane climax, has no real "DIE HARD HERO SHOT" that I wanted to see. Other then those minor gripes that I personally have, this was a big surprise to me. Other then Grindhouse and 300, I had the most fun at this film this year.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/4box.gif

[Bill]

Hmm, now I'm stuck between John's review and your review.

Thanks for your review.

[John McClane]

If that's the "best action film of recent years," America's in some serious trouble.

Die Hard was not an action film to end all action films, it was an action film to define all action films. From that point forward, anyways. Willis was a no-body TV star that blasted onto the screen and changed the action film genre overnight. If that's not the qualifications of an amazing film, my name is Clint Eastwood.

Like you said, there was no shot in the film that made you think "Die Hard!" And that's because this movie isn't a Die Hard movie. It's an unrealistic over the top action film that does a complete 180 on the franchise. How anyone can call this film good is *completely* beyond me. Sure, it's got action (no way it's the most violent, however). Doesn't mean it's in line with the Die Hard series, or any other good action movies for that matter.

I really wanted this movie to be good, honestly. But saying it's good/great would just be going against my better judgment. I totally disagree with your rating/opinion on this flick but, thanks for sharing your thoughts. :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

You are making an interesting point in saying that this film is not at all like the others. People said that about the third film, when it was not Christmas or set in some kind of enclosed area.

This film isn't like the other DIE HARD films, you're right, but does that mean it's not enjoyable? Hell no.

Your problem IMO is that you're viewing this film as a IE HARD fan. With your name being McClane and your love for the previous films, it's no surprise that you wanted the same exact thing. This film took a different turn because it is a different time for McClane. He's older, he knows it, his wife is gone and daughter hates him. Blah blah blah, so on.

If you weren't blown away by the action, then your standards are too high. I loved how the 'unrealistic' action was constantly going on in the film, that's what made it more enjoyable. To see him get hit by a car in one scene, and still kicking ass the next.

Hell, I even liked the fact that they changed the colour scheme to the film. This film has a more cold blue feel (digital age) whereas the other films had a red/earthy feel.

I ask you to name a better action film from the last 5 years....

[John McClane]

You are making an interesting point in saying that this film is not at all like the others. People said that about the third film, when it was not Christmas or set in some kind of enclosed area.What I meant by different was the action. The fourth Die Hard makes the action from the past 3 absolutely, completely possible in the realm of physics. That's a total 180.

This film isn't like the other DIE HARD films, you're right, but does that mean it's not enjoyable? Hell no.Yea, it does.

Your problem IMO is that you're viewing this film as a IE HARD fan. With your name being McClane and your love for the previous films, it's no surprise that you wanted the same exact thing. This film took a different turn because it is a different time for McClane. He's older, he knows it, his wife is gone and daughter hates him. Blah blah blah, so on.I didn't want the same exact thing. I just didn't want crap/over the top *****, either.

If you weren't blown away by the action, then your standards are too high. I loved how the 'unrealistic' action was constantly going on in the film, that's what made it more enjoyable. To see him get hit by a car in one scene, and still kicking ass the next.I found myself saying "Oh come on for Christ's sakes!" When you do that, the action has gone way TOO far. The first one blew you out of your seats. The fourth one blew ***** all over you.

Hell, I even liked the fact that they changed the colour scheme to the film. This film has a more cold blue feel (digital age) whereas the other films had a red/earthy feel.Well geeh, why didn't you say that earlier? This film deserves 40 billion stars, now.

I ask you to name a better action film from the last 5 years....Oh man, that's easy; and it actually barely cuts your 5 year requirement.

The Bourne Identity

But I'll do you a favor, I'll name 4 more; Kill Bill Vol. 1, Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Sin City.

All those films kick the living crap out of Die Hard 4.

[nebbit]

I think I need to see this movie, especially now, with you 2 guys on opposite sides :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

What I meant by different was the action. The fourth Die Hard makes the action from the past 3 absolutely, completely possible in the realm of physics. That's a total 180.

That's what made this film so good. You realize it's been 12 years since the last DIE HARD film. If it had the same old action routines no one would really care about it. It HAD to be bigger and better, guess what it was.

Yea, it does.

There's a great answer.... :skeptical:

I didn't want the same exact thing. I just didn't want crap/over the top *****, either.

Honestly, only one scene really popped out in my mind as completely over the top, when he drove the car through the building. The rest while, might be deemed over the top by some, was perfect for me. I guess it depends on your taste for action. Even the fighter jet scene was great for me.

I found myself saying "Oh come on for Christ's sakes!" When you do that, the action has gone way TOO far. The first one blew you out of your seats. The fourth one blew ***** all over you.

Then that is your loss, I always thought the point of a DIE HARD film was to have **** blown up all over you. It's an action film, the first set the standards, this one raised it. Something the 2nd didn't do.

Well geeh, why didn't you say that earlier? This film deserves 40 billion stars, now.

Thanks, I'm glad you finally see it my way. :)

Oh man, that's easy; and it actually barely cuts your 5 year requirement.

The Bourne Identity

But I'll do you a favor, I'll name 4 more; Kill Bill Vol. 1, Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Sin City.

All those films kick the living crap out of Die Hard 4.

While you may count those as 'ACTION' films, I wouldn't. Sure those films showcase some action, but it terms of GENRE, they don't compete. Batman Begins has great action, but the fight scene were poorly editted to the point where I couldn't tell what was going on. I wouldn't deem that an action film either, Comic Book Adaptation/superhero/adventure. Same goes for V for Vendetta. As for Sin City, you want to talk about over the top??? Plus another Graphic Novel Adaptation and more of a noir film then action. Kill Bill has next to no action, in terms of action films. It has fight scenes. While those fight scenes are amazing, you're telling me they're not over the top? One woman VS 88 guys?

Having never seen The Bourne Identity I can't really comment on it, but it's more of a spy/thriller then action film.

What I ment by name a better action film is when you think of this film the first thing that comes to your mind is ACTION. When I think of Batman, Sin city, Vendetta, Identity, and Kill Bill, the first thing that comes to my mind is not action. When I think of DIE HARD, the first thing that comes to my mind is ACTION. When I think of The Rock, Con Air, Crank, Leon....I think of action.


Thrilling sequences are scattered throughout the film, which is what movie goers want out of a DIE HARD film. The one thing that may disappoint viewers is the far fetched bad guy plan and it's execution. But not the action, or the fact it doesn't feel DIE HARD.

[John McClane]

What I ment by name a better action film is when you think of this film the first thing that comes to your mind is ACTION. When I think of Batman, Sin city, Vendetta, Identity, and Kill Bill, the first thing that comes to my mind is not action. When I think of DIE HARD, the first thing that comes to my mind is ACTION. When I think of The Rock, Con Air, Crank, Leon....I think of action.


Thrilling sequences are scattered throughout the film, which is what movie goers want out of a DIE HARD film. The one thing that may disappoint viewers is the far fetched bad guy plan and it's execution. But not the action, or the fact it doesn't feel DIE HARD.So an action film is something that has stuff blowing up every two seconds with very little story and taste? Yea, this film is the best action film in years. :rolleyes:

Honestly, this film had MORE action then the last three. And that's not a good thing. It's the kind of thing that makes Michael Bay's movies suck. Honestly, if I didn't know better I would've said this was a Michael Bay film. It has all the classic crap from his movies. I stand by what I said, this is NOT a Die Hard movie. And you're going to have to come up with a better reason than "It has more action than any other 'action' film I've seen in the last three years." That's the beauty of the Die Hard series, action is not the only thing the movies have going for them.

The Bourne Identity's action amount is very close to the first Die Hard. And guess what, spy/thriller movies are considered action movies. Unless we're going by your definition, in which case let's pop in Michael Bay's The Island for good measure.

Oh BTW, action is NOT the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of Die Hard; the villain Hans Gruber does, though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

So an action film is something that has stuff blowing up every two seconds with very little story and taste? Yea, this film is the best action film in years. :rolleyes:

Honestly, this film had MORE action then the last three. And that's not a good thing. It's the kind of thing that makes Michael Bay's movies suck. Honestly, if I didn't know better I would've said this was a Michael Bay film. It has all the classic crap from his movies. I stand by what I said, this is NOT a Die Hard movie. And you're going to have to come up with a better reason than "It has more action than any other 'action' film I've seen in the last three years." That's the beauty of the Die Hard series, action is not the only thing the movies have going for them.

The Bourne Identity's action amount is very close to the first Die Hard. And guess what, spy/thriller movies are considered action movies. Unless we're going by your definition, in which case let's pop in Michael Bay's The Island for good measure.

Oh BTW, action is NOT the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of Die Hard; the villain Hans Gruber does, though.

I gave you more then 'it has a lot of action in it' as a reason it's a good film. In case you missed them, here they are, and a few more for good measure.

McClane- Yes, it's been 12 years, but Willis is still the same John McClane that everyone loves. There's only two things different. No hair and he's older. Willis plays this up to the character more. He's still spiutting out one liners and smart ass remarks.

The villain- Yes, he has a one look stare the entire time, but he is still leaps and bounds over the horrible villain from DIE HARDER. I diud not get the whole parody of itself notion through the sequel, which is why maybe the film doesn't resonate well with me and it does well with you.

Justin Long - Not once did I sit there wishing it was Jackson in that role. Long brought a sense of humour that was missing from previous films to lift up the action packed sequences.

Michael Bay movies do suck, but I would never consider this to be comapred to one. Bay's films are big in the explosion department, sure, but what else. This film has so much more to it then the action sequences. Also, unlike Bay's action films where it's so-so, this action delivers on what is expected.

The editing did bug me here and there when you can clearly tell they took out some more blood and guts and the swearing for that PG-13 rating.

The way I see it was I was expecting another mediocre film and got something more. You were expecting something more and got a lot less. The fans and critics seem to love this film 8.4 on IMDB and 76% on rottentomates. You seem to be in the minority. Again, I say because you are a big DIE HARD fan. Just my opinion.

[John McClane]

IMDB has this film in the top 250 movies; some thing's seriously wrong with that list.

Most of those one liners were horrendous. The PG-13 severely crippled the old McClane. Instead, we got a new kiddy version. Anyone who's seen the last 3 know McClane's a potty mouth.

Justin Long wasn't as bad as I thought he'd be, but that has nothing to do with how they handled McClane and the action.

I actually thought they did a very good job with the villain in this movie (one look stare, included). But even he couldn't save this film.

I actually like the action in Bay's films more than this one. The Rock comes to mind as a hell of a lot better than Die Hard 4.

I was expecting them to stay in line with McClane's character. I was expecting them to put him in a situation where he might end up losing again. I was expecting them to do a good job. Clearly, that's asking too much (for them to just stay in toe with the original three) of the Die Hard franchise these days.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I love The Rock as well, there's something we agree on.

[John McClane]

I love The Rock as well, there's something we agree on.Haha, yea. That's the only time you hear Michael Bay and good in the same sentence from me. :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Same here, but I hope that changes with Transformers.

[John McClane]

I have a new rule, never watch anything that has the name Michael Bay near it. So I won't be seeing it.

[jrs]

.... I won't be seeing it.


:eek: Well, at least just try and give it a chance. :) Ya just might like it.

[Pyro Tramp]

I saw it thinking i'd feel same as member McClane. I didn't. It's a post 9/11 action film, i don't think they could've made it anything like the other Die Hard films for that reason alone. Terrorism doesn't have the same meaning in films now. And what's wrong with just going to a film to be entertained, the other's didn't provide any intellectual stimulants, they were just fun so why can't this one be only on a bigger scale? I did think whole country under attack opposed to confined area would be a downfall but most the action was in confined areas, except the final chase, and even then it wasn't 'superhero' action which was another thing i thought was going to happen. The only gripe i had was Kevin Smith in an annoying intertextual nod.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Whoa.....who's the awsome guy full of crazy awsomeness who gave me positive reps on all my reviews?

[Yoda]

Whoa.....who's the awsome guy full of crazy awsomeness who gave me positive reps on all my reviews?
Me; I'm going through the thread and marking your reviews, and naturally thought each was deserving of positive rep, as well.

I'm through about 12 pages, I think. I should be able to finish them tomorrow.

[nebbit]

Whoa.....who's the awsome guy full of crazy awsomeness who gave me positive reps on all my reviews?
You deserve it :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Marked for what?

Side Note - The reviews section is looking great, keep up the good work.

[Yoda]

Marked for what?

Side Note - The reviews section is looking great, keep up the good work.
Marked for the User Reviews (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/users.html) list; you can see the recent ones (with a link to the rest) on the right of the reviews area.

There's also a link to a list of your User Reviews in your profile. Right now it's just one long page, but I'll be paginating it before long.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Simpsons Movie (David Silverman)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_simpsons_movie/thesimpsons_mob.jpg


"Fresh, Ambitious & Really Funny, The Simpsons Score On The Big Screen"

Homer dumps some 'waste' into a nearby lake in Springfield, causing the EPA to take dramatic matters. The decision is made to enclose the city in a dome, thus making Homer public enemy number one.

From 180ft paintings in the grass next to sacred images, to 7/11 turning itself into Kwik-E-Marts and numerous tv spots on the fox network, it was no surprise that almost everyone on earth knew about The Simpsons Movie. The longest running show on television, 18 years later is finally hitting the big screen. To say it was hyped would be an understatement. Can a show that has been falling down the ladder in quality and viewers make the jump to the big screen? Well, with 11 writers, all from the good days of The Simpsons, it's safe to say that they hit this one out of the park.

While they tried their best to keep the plot of the film under wraps before its release, the basic plot of the film was known to be before I saw the film. It did ruin a few surprises and jokes, but not the overall experience. Like Homer says in the opening bit of the film, why pay for something when you can see it for free on the television. Well, this movie is the answer to that. It pushes the envelope further, which is a luxury the creators have in the film world that they do not have in tv land. Where shows like Family guy appeared on tv and garnered big success, it seemed The Simpsons was losing a battle it was always winning. Now after it’s big screen debut, The Simpsons, I’m hoping, is back on track to being the show it once was. What Family Guy failed to do with it’s “film”, which felt like 3 episodes edited together, The Simpsons does wonderfully.

The animation is crisp and up-to-date. Seeing this film did not make me miss the flowing hair on certain chef rats or big green ogres. While we have seen Homer in “3-D” it simply would not have worked here and I’m glad they stuck with the traditional animation.

For fans of the show, it’s always fun finding those inside jokes scattered throughout the film, such as Homer finally making the jump over the gorge, a feat he failed to do in ‘Bart The Daredevil’ and the ambulance that is still crashed at the edge of the gorge. Aside from show references, there are hundreds upon hundreds of film references, which include: Titanic, Star Wars, Spider-man, An Inconvenient Truth and many, many more.

The film is definitely for all ages, both adults and kids, who are fans of the show, will find this film entertaining. While in the theatre the laughter was unison with young and old. The good thing is, you don’t really have to be a fan of the show to get the jokes. There is enough comedy in this film for both parties. It does help if you know the history of some of the characters, such as Millhouse’s lust for Lisa, and the cold heart of Mr. Burns. There are also some new characters introduced, whether or not we see them recurring in the show is another story.

The voice acting is on the spot here, which is what would be expected from the people who’ve been these characters for almost two decades. As with many episodes, there are celebrity guest voices, but I can’t really say who lends their voice without giving away the joke/surprise that it’s meant to be.

Yes, this does feel like a Simpsons episode stretch to 90 minutes, but that is a good thing. Crafting a film from a series that has been on the air for nearly two decades is a risky thing, but they pulled it off. The film is oozing of the first few seasons of the show, which are the best, but it’s also fresh and ambitious. Those 11 writers for the show, show us that they care about these characters and prove to us that they are still in good hands. Will the success of the film, spread back to the show? I hope so. And to answer Homer’s question. Why pay for something when you can get it for free on tv. Well, because it’s funny, that’s why.


http://www.movieforums.com/images/general_pics/4box.gif

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review :) I am going to see this one :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Hostel (Eli Roth)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/hostel/hostel_viking.jpg


"Not The Shocking Horror We Wanted...Or Needed"

3 friends backpacking through Europe look for sex and booze. They hear about some kind of Hostel that offers beautiful naked women and no attachments. They go off in search for this place, but instead find a torture house. Soon they are finding themselves in a heap of trouble.

Eli Roth is being hailed as the new face of horror. As of right now, with the current features under his belt; I must ask myself, why does this guy have this title? Granted I liked Cabin Fever, with it's homages left right and centre to the genre, but was it good enough to have its director considered 'Horror Master'? After watching Hostel, I still sit here dumbfounded.

Upon this films release (and after it as well) the only thing I kept hearing was how sick and twisted it was. How there was no real story and that a film like this should not be in print. Being the horror fanatic that I am, I was hoping to see something that I, and the fans of the genre, can enjoy while everyone else trashed it. Now after seeing Hostel, I sit here on the fence as to whether or not I liked it. It's not the vile, porn-torture, disgust of a film that I thought it was, but it wasn't a horrible piece of trash either.

Roth knows the genre well, which is evident in how he presents the film and the style throughout. This is it's high and low points. The film looks beautiful in the second half, but Roth overexposes the viewer to what makes horror movies horror movies. For example, an action film usually has gun fire and car chases; horror films usually have blood, sex and violence. In Hostel, we get overexposed with an obscene amount of nudity, then the second half is an obscene amount of sadistic violence. The film plays like two different movies. The first half is soft core porn and is shot like a teen slasher film, while the second is 'considered' a snuff film, shot with a grittier look.

My problems with the film are scattered throughout it's running time. For everything good in the film, there is something bad. Horror films are suppose to make you feel a certain number of things. One is to be scared, yet this film is not scary. Instead Roth relies on graphic violence to scare his audience. People claim that the film is a gory trip through hell and back. Did I miss the train? Hostel, to sum up in one sentence: Does Not Live Up To The Hype. I don't know if it's the sick films I've seen prior (Cannibal Holocaust, Dead-Alive, Evil Dead), but Hostel is not what it seems. The film tries to go for shock, but fails to deliver any in its poor attempt.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of other horror films Roth shows us. Any horror fan can point out certain places and things Roth homages. One that I liked was seeing Takishi Miike walk out of the warehouse. Here is a person Roth admires greatly and by the time you're reading this has probably already directed 3 more films. While I am not a total fan of Takishi yet, I can respect his films. You can see a touch of his style here. Nobody should be fooled by the title Tarantino Presents. Other then promoting a friends film, he has no touch here. It's a shame, cause this film could have used a touch up.

It is suspenseful in some scenes, but the way Roth constructs them is horrible. We are suppose to believe that the main character will go back to save a life, simply because of one line of dialogue earlier? To explain, our so called hero says that he once saw someone die and he could have done something to save her. Later on in the film he hears the screaming of a woman and goes to try and save her. Despite this never happening in real life(unless the person is someone you know/love) the fact that the only suspense in the film comes from this poor explanation, it taints the rest of the film.

So in the end, I can't recommend this to any real horror fan, or even people looking for a good film. Instead watch it if you're a fan of the stuff. If your favourite movies include Saw Wolf Creek, then Hostel may be the film for you. I found myself wanting to enjoy it, but simply couldn't. I'll have to wait and see what Roth can deliver to us later, then maybe he can earn his horror title.


1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Cannibal Ferox (Umberto Lenzi)

http://www.videosewer.com/Reviews/image/cannibal_ferox.jpg


"I Was Expecting Shock & Gore....Ferox Doesn't Deliver"

3 people go into the amazon in destroy the myth of cannibals. On their trek they find two men who are on the run from a tribe. It is later revealed these men tortured members of the tribe for rare gems. It's only a matter of time before the tribe members take their revenge on them and make them die slowly.

I recently obtained this infamous film from horrormovies.com in hopes of viewing something that many claim is horrific and brutal. The entire marketing campaign is that the film is banned in 31 countries. Many horror fans know of the film and it's counter-part, Cannibal Holocaust (a much better film). So after the wait and all the hype, does this film deliver the goods? Yes and no. Unfortunately is more on the no side. Ferox does not deliver on the shock and disgust that one would expect. If that one has viewed such films as Holocaust, Ichi the Killer and Dead-Alive. For those new to the whole experience, this film will shock and disgust, but for people looking for this sort of thing, you won't find it here.

The acting, if that's what you want to call it, if full of cheese. Granted this is most likely what they were going for. Watching the film one has to compare it to Holocaust, as they are both virtually the same film. Where Holocaust went for realistic and horrific vibes, Ferox goes the total opposite; it's full of camp. Which plays off odd because the film also takes itself seriously. It seems as if not everyone was on board with the same direction they wanted. The actors are doing one thing, while the director is doing another.

The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places. Much like Holocaust, nothing happens until later in the film. So we have to sit here and listen to inane dialogue; such as "Shut up, sh*t face" and have it delivered to us by hammy actors. I don't know what I really expected, because I didn't expect it to be all that great.

Yes there are animal killings, which disturb the viewer and make us sit there and think if any of it was really necessary. It doesn't serve the purpose of the "story" and is simply there for that shock value. A shock value already seen in Holocaust. In the end, Holocaust is definitely the better film. It's certainly more original and shocking then what we have here. Ferox doesn't deserve the title of being banned in 31 countries. Skip Ferox and see Holocaust if you want to see a cannibal film.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/general_pics/1_5box.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

Superbad (Greg Mottola)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/superbad/christopher_mintz_plasse/superbad.jpg

"Hill's Fast Comedy Style and Cera's Awkward Timing Make For Comedy Gold"

With only a few weeks of school left, two losers are invited to a party being thrown by a girl. They decide not to tell their even more of a loser friend about the party, until he mentions getting a fake I.D. Now they are able to buy booze for the party. The rest of the film follows their antics in trying to get booze and to the party.

Superbad was, much like Snakes On A Plane, a much hyped film on the internet. A red band trailer (uncensored) played on the internet and people left right and centre thought it was hilarious. With the success of Knocked Up, another Apatow production, Superbad looked to be not only a hilarious film, but a financially successful one as well. Now that the film has arrived, it seems to have lived up to that hype and better both 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up.

While I haven't seen Knocked Up yet, I stated that the 40 Year Old Virgin was the funniest movie of the last couple years and now you can put Superbad right beside it. With the comedic writing style of Seth Rogen, who also has a starring role and Apatow as the producer it was hard for this film to fail, considering the current high ride these guys are on right now. Add to the mix Jonah Hill and Michael Cera as two unknown leads with comedic style just waiting to be seen and you have one funny movie.

Hill's fast pace comedic style reminds me of Vince Vaughn and he fits perfectly here in the Apatow crew. Cera's comedy style is clearly in his actions and awkward pauses. Any fan of Arrested Development can see the same style here, which plays off very well with Hill's fast style. The third wheel Fogal, played pitch perfectly by Christpoher Mintz-Plasse, has a style that we've seen before, but taken to another level. Yes, he's a nerd that even nerds find nerdy, but Plasse takes that role and made it his own. It makes one think if they wrote it like that, or he simply took it over. Both Rogen and Hader play the not too old to party police officers who take Fogal, who's actually best known as McLovin, for a ride. With the trailer playing it up big on these two guys and the whole McLovin joke, one would expect it to run it's course fairly early. Yet these three make it fresh and funny with each scene.

While it is certainly not original by any means, it earns points for taking a tired genre (highschool kids wanting to get laid and drink booze) and make it relatable to all generations. Soemthing that films from the 80's can't do with kids these days, but Superbad is able to do with the older crowd. It may be the whole retro feel the film has to it, from it's party styles to the clothes our two characters wear.

While Hill get's most of the good lines, Cera is the one who gets most of the laughs. His awkward sex moment plays as one of the funniest scenes. It's weird that they are both outshined by Plasse. Who gets a little too excited in one scene when he has a boner. While both leads have had small fame before hand, with Cera on the hilarious Arrested Development and Hill as 'the fat guy' from recent comedies; it's easy to see this film as their breakthrough roles.

Much like Virgin, and I'm assuming Knocked Up, Superbad has a message. Yes, in this raunchy vulgar comedy there is a message about being yourselves and letting some things go in life. You can see these messages coming from the start, but that doesn't effect the film in any way.

There are too many moments of hilarity to pick just one. Whether it's Cera awkward singing or Hill's leg being used as a tampon, every scene is just as funny as the one before. The comedy doesn't really let up and is consistent all throughout. With Virgin running a bit too long and Wedding Crashers third act failing horribly, it's hard for comedies to stay consistantly funny these days. Superbad doesn't have this problem and if you're a fan of the comedies I mentioned earlier, this film will not disappoint.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/general_pics/4box.gif

[nebbit]

Thanks for th great reviews :yup:
I didn't like Hostel :nope: so I will not be adding it to my collection :nope:
I will go and see Superbad Thanks for that recomendation :)




[SIZE=3]"I Was Expecting Shock & Gore....Ferox Doesn't Deliver"
The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping;
Thats not enough for you :eek: ;D

Call me sick or twisted,
You are sick and Twisted :laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Story OF Ricky (Ngai Kai Lam)

http://www.subwaycinema.com/frames/archives/gore2002/images/movies/ricky1.gif


What The Hell Did I Just Watch?????

A man with the strength of 30 plus men is sent to a corrupt prison. While there he fights the inmates and the warden to right all the wrongs.

I wouldn't be surprised if no one here has ever heard of this film. I myself only heard of it through the word of friend, who hasn't even seen it himself. After much debate I decided to throw caution to the wind and buy it. I'm not disappointed I did, but not thrilled about it either. Does this film have a deep and thought provoking plot, Oscar worthy performances, or amazing special effects? Heck no, far from it. What does it have you ask? Well, plot holes left right and centre, camp and cheese in the performance and the effects and more over-the-top scenes then a MCG flick.

Why would anyone want to watch a film like this? Well, I bought it for one reason...and one reason only. The Violent Gore. For the longest time Peter Jackson's 'Dead Alive' was notorious for being "The Goriest Film Of All Time". Well, after seeing this flick, I don't know if that statement can still hold true. Although the gore in this film, which earned it a category III rating in Hong Kong, the first ever for a film with violence and not sex (think XXX), is above and beyond...it's too cartoony to be taken seriously. As is the case with Dead-Alive as well. In any review of a horror flick that claims to be gory, I compare it to the likes of Dead-Alive, Evil Dead Cannibal Holocaust. I can add this flick to that list as well.

Let's go over what happens in this flick shall we. We first get a glimpse of what we have in store for us when a guy has his nose sliced off from a wooden lathe, block of wood with nails goes through a man's hands to the face, someone gets punched through their stomach, a saw like sword get stuck half way through a man's face, a knife skins a man's face, cane through the eye, punch through the face, a punch to a man's hand explodes it, someone gets a mouth full of razors and then bitch slapped, a man crushes another's head with bare hands....and much much more. I didn't even tell you the goriest part yet.

I mentioned plot holes earlier and they are everywhere here. Such as why are the prisoners able to go in and out of their cells at will? Why is the secret grow-op being done out in plain sight. Also, when the ceiling is crushing you, why aren't you running out the giant hole in the wall right next to you? There are many many more, but the list is too long. These things do not really distract from the film, but add to the whole campy cheese feel that is oozing in this flick.

If you thought that Blade II, Kill Bill or The Matrix were as close to anime as we can get for live-action...look no further then Story Of Ricky. It is without a doubt, the closest thing to anime I have seen today. Which speaks volumes, with all the gory scenes being done to obvious dolls. Look for the inside of someone's hand being made of styrofoam. Here is a movie that is perfect for the internet based game "Things I've Learned From This Movie". You can go on and on with such things as I learned that destroying gravestones is okay when you're learning kung-fu.

See the film if any of this interests you, don't see it if you are seriously disturbed.

2.5

[nebbit]

Story OF Ricky (Ngai Kai Lam)

http://www.subwaycinema.com/frames/archives/gore2002/images/movies/ricky1.gif


don't see it if you are seriously disturbed.
I'm out :yup:

[Pyro Tramp]

I've heard of it, only heard luke warm reports. Will read rest the review when my eyes aren't so tired :(

[TheUsualSuspect]

Halloween (Rob Zombie)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/halloween/_group_photos/tyler_mane1.jpg


"Not As Good As Original, But Still Better Then The Rest"

A remake of the Carpenter classic "Halloween". Michael is sent to an insane asylum after killing his family. He escapes and kills people. That's about it.

In 1978 John Carpenter released a film that went on to become a cult classic. Not only is it regarded as one of the best slashers films of all time, but one of the best horror films of all time. Anyone who thought that Rob Zombie was going to up the original is off their nut, but Zombie does manage to make this remake one of the better installments in the Halloween series. Although that is not saying much about this film, but more about the others. Halloween doesn't come close to being as good as the original, but it is one of the better horror remakes that we've seen done to death.

Zombie is a member of the "splat pack". A term used to describe a group of directors who use graphic violence and gore in their films. Halloween has all that is expected from Zombie. Foul language, disturbing violent and bloody scenes and a general horrific atmosphere. These ingredients usually make for a spectacular horror flick, but in this case it simply makes one that is slightly better then the competition. From the start you know it's Zombie's film, we know his style and we know his cast. Familiar faces pop up everywhere in small cameo roles. Zombie's usual crew: his wife Sheri Moon Zombie, William Forsythe, Udo Kier, Bill Moseley, Danny Trejo, Sid Haig and Ken Foree are here and old horror favourite Brad Dourif and everyman Clint Howard round out the supporting characters. McDowell plays Dr. Loomis, made famous by Pleasence. He does a fine job, but does nothing to really add to the character. Here was his chance to do something and actually make a bit of that character his own, but instead plays right through it. Jamie Lee Curtis was also made famous by her character Lauri Strode, she became known as the Scream Queen. The actress does a good job, again, but doesn't fill the shoes of Curtis at all. She would have been fine if this were some other character in some other slasher film, but it's Laurie Strode. Finally Tyler Mane as Myers. One of the better representations of the character yet, probably because this film dives so deep down into him. Mane portrays an evil walking entity perfectly and does strike fear into the viewer. His size alone will make you clinch your seat. It's odd for someone to not say one word in the film and give the best performance.

I don't know what it is with these remakes that seem to have to give some kind of reason or human background to these monsters, but it doesn't always work. Black Christmas, TCM: The Beginning and now Halloween try to humanize a character that doesn't need it. Out of all the sadistic slashers out there, Jason and Freddy included, Myers is the only one who is pure evil. Jason is out for revenge, Freddy is a child molester out for revenge, Chucky is a killer trapped in a doll out for revenge, Leatherface is mentally challenged...but Myers is simply and purely evil. Loomis tells us this, there is nothing behind his eyes, just emptiness, blackness. So why the need to show us a human side to him? Although I did like what they 'tried' to do with it. Showing Myers as a kid in the asylum was interesting, if a bit too long.

There lies another problem, the film feels like two totally different films. First we are following Myers and his sick and twisted life he lives, then we switch gears to Laurie. Not enough time to get connected with anyone in this flick.

It's easy to see how far Zombie has come with his directing skills. House of 1,000 corpses felt like a 2 hour music video for one of zombies horror songs. Rejects shows maturity and an appreciation for a genre. Halloween shows that he is able to step outside of his comfort zone and tackle something that is held with such high respect. If he were to mess it up, it would be it and he would fall into the realms of every other horror director out there, but he doesn't falter. He doesn't score one out of the park either, instead of remakes a horror classic and adds his own unique spin on it. The camera angles, the dialogue, the violence all scream Zombie.

There are a few scares in the film, mostly jump scares, one of which did get me. I attribute the scares to the sound instead of the imagery. Speaking of imagery, yes the iconic scene is added as a homage to the original here. The infamous 'tit' shot as it is known in "Scream" although it is handled sloppy and rushed. In fact, the whole film feels rushed, like it can't wait to get to the next scene for it's scary moment. The deaths are fine, more gory and violent then original, which is expected, but the people who die...who are they? We are introduced to them minutes before their death. No time to connect with anyone...ANYONE.

A shaky start, good middle and abrupt ending make for Zombie's Halloween a hair short of being a really good horror film. It is leaps and bounds over other remakes of recent years. Don't get me started on "When A Stranger Calls". Compared to the original, it sucks, compared to what we have today, it's great. Zombie was the best man for the job and any horror fan will be pleased they caught this one.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/3_5box.gif

[nebbit]

Not a great horror flick fan so will give it a miss :yup: thanks for the great review :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Shoot Em Up (Michael Davis)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/shoot__em_up/clive_owen/shoot3.jpg


"It's Exactly What You'd Expect It To Be"

MR. Smith delivers a baby during a shootout in a warehouse. After the mother is killed, he must protect the baby himself, all while shooting bad guys dead.

There are really two types of action films. Smart ones, such as the Bourne films and dumb ones, like The Transporter 2 and Crank. Can you guess which one of these two Shoot Em Up falls under? I'm not saying a dumb action film is bad, unless it says directed by Michael Bay on it. (save for The Rock). Instead a dumb action film is something you watch when you want to get away from the everyday things of life, suspend any sense of reality and enjoy shoot-outs and car chases. Shoot Em Up is this in a nutshell. It takes the dumb action film and turns up the action. Not once does it take itself seriously, but it never really crosses the line of parody either.

Within the first 5 minutes we are thrown into the front seat. When people say this film has action from start to finish, they literally mean it. There is no build up for the characters or story, instead our opening shot is of Clive Owen eating a carrot, he sees a pregnant woman running for her life and then sees the guy chasing her. Being the nice guy he is, he kills that man with his carrot and delivers the baby...all while still shooting bad guys. During the shoot out the mother ends up dead and Owen takes it upon himself to protect this child, so he runs up stairs, jumps across buildings into rooms and shoots the bad guys...while carrying this baby. This is simply the first ten minutes of the film. If at any point you seem to be rolling your eyes, do not read on and don't even bother seeing this flick.

After trying to unsuccessfully leave the baby in a park, our "hero" tries to leave the baby with a lactating prostitute, the very lovely Monica Bellucci. For some reason the bad guy, played by character actor Paul Giamatti knows this, well...because he's good at knowing things. More shooting entails and more suspension of reality ensues. How does Giamatti know all these things about where our guy lives, where he is going and who he really is, is never explained. He always had a thing for knowing this stuff apparently, he worked with the CSI before, or some other organization. Honestly, it's just a poor excuse to keep the film moving at a fast pace. The only scenes that are slow are the ones where characters need to throw in some dialogue to try and tell us the little bit of story there is. It's the usual stuff too, why they are after the baby, what they plan to do with it, who they are working for, etc. After those brief 5 minutes it's back into the action with both guns blazing.

Shoot Em Up is one of those films where you can learn stuff, for instance; I learned you can still shoot and kill people while having sex. As well as you can kill people with carrots, survive a car crash with no seat belt, run directly towards a guy shooting at you with an Uzi and not get touched by one bullet, shoot someone with 5 bullets and your fingers and of course jump out of a plane and shoot dozens of men then land safely on the ground. These are just some of the things that happen in this film, I didn't even mention the part where Owen shoots the playground spinning thing to save the kid or when he ties guns to shelfs with strings then uses said string to fire those guns at bad guys. Again, if your eyes roll at anytime...please do not see this film.

After all is said and done, I enjoyed myself. I knew exactly what I was getting into, basically it's the sequel to Crank. Although I enjoyed this one a bit more, it's certainly heavy on the action and lite on everything else. We know absolutely nothing about Owen's character. Sure Giamatti says some things about who he thinks he is, but it is never confirmed. Should we care for this guy with no first name and no background? Better yet...should we even care if we care...should we even think at all during this movie? No people. The purpose of this flick, as far as I can tell was to show over the top action sequence. Job well done.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/general_pics/3box.gif

[nebbit]

Sounds like a hoot, thanks Sussy :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

SAW IV (Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/saw_iv/sawiv_bald.jpg


"The SAW Franchise finally descends into absurdity"

Jigsaw is dead, but his game is far from over. A detective is on the hunt for clues around the city, in which he must act in the same manner as Jigsaw with the victims he finds. He must do this in order to find the location of two of his colleagues and save them.

It's easy to see how the SAW franchise, as it is now called, is turning into the same mess that struck Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare On Elm Street. The story is over, but the cash flow still has some juice in it. In this installment Jigsaw is dead, but his cruel game continues. How you might ask? Well, if I were to explain that, it would ruin the film, but it's hard to review this film without leaking something.

The original SAW redefined the horror genre, so much so that there are now countless imitators. It packed the goods in gore and a shocking twist at the end. The sequel, which really was not needed, tried to capitalize on the same system. It failed. Yet still made boatloads of money. Hence the 3rd, and this film and of course the next one. SAW IV becomes a parody of itself, unintentionally mind you. It tries to re-capture the essence of the original from plot points to the twist, which is a staple in the series now. Why SAW IV doesn't work as well as it wants to, is because it's far too confusing and doesn't satisfy it's audience, instead it leaves more holes, that will be filled in by it's sequel, much like how this one filled in some from the 3rd.

SAW IV answers the questions, such as who the blonde woman was in Jigsaw's dreams and why he covered the tape in wax. Yet leaves out other things, specifically what the letter said to Amanda. It could have easily been explained, but they wanted to leave as much story as possible to continue this franchise, which should have been over at 1 and could have been wrapped up completely with 3. This leaves the audience confused, as well as angry. When the final credits rolled up I sat back in my chair and asked myself if they really answered anything as to why it ended the way it did…it doesn't. It throws in that twist that is expected, but doesn't bother to explain it. I guess we have to wait another year to find out why things happened the way they did.

SAW IV is gory, probably the worst out of all of them, but not quite as nerve flinching as the others. It doesn't have any scenes that make you squirm in your seat like when Dr. Gordon saws off his foot, or when Amanda falls into the pit full of needles, or even when Detective Matthews smashes hiss foot with the toilet cover. Those small things are the ones that get the audience; this film simply shows the bloody entrails of people.

I will give credit to where it's due. The film stays consistent with the others and I applause the actors and writers for continuing certain characters through out the entire series. It gives fans goose bumps when they see a familiar face. Also, the twist, which fails in comparison to the first two but it better then the third, is adequate. In fact there is more then one twist. We also get some more background history on Jigsaw, who he was before he became a psychopath. A little hint as to why as well.

We can't connect to any of these characters. Characters from the previous films that show up here, have very little screen time and are killed off. Why have them survive through all this stuff just to kill them off. It cheapens the films in which we root for them to live; we know their fate in the end. There may have been characters that you cared for in previous installments that were trapped in Jigsaw's game, this time around, unless you knew them from before, we know their fate, we know we don't care.

The ending will confuse the hell out of a lot of people; I had to take a minute to figure it out myself. Maybe because it was really well written, or horrible executed, I have decided yet. I found myself sitting there with a confused look across my face, wanting more, not simply because I wanted more, but because the film needed more. The film has a lot of stuff going on, it's not to know who' who, who's dead, what's going on where and so on.If you've missed one film in the series, you will most likely be lost in this film. It asks you, as do the others, to pay attention to the previous films. I really enjoy that; it asks the audience to think a little bit, which is usually missing from horror films these days.

It's a tad better then the second and third, but falls apart near the end. This time around we can't seem to care for the guy whose trapped in Jigsaw's mind game. We've come to expect the unexpected, we've comes to be grossed out. Have the makers of this series run their course? Well, after the next film, to tie everything up, I hope the answer is yes. The first is still the best and I cannot imagine the next one being any better.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/2_5box.gif

[Pyro Tramp]

Wow, i was going to read your Saw 4 review but realised it was the pinned review on IMDB i read early today, good work Matt.

[TheUsualSuspect]

That's funny, thanks for the congrats.


oh no...they know my real name now.

[TheUsualSuspect]

We Own The Night (James Gray)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/we_own_the_night/_group_photos/mark_wahlberg3.jpg


"Great Performances and Directing Drive This Film Across The Finish Line"

A New York club owner has his club raided by cops one night, the catch is that one of the cops doing the raiding is his own brother. After his brother his sent to the hospital, he takes matters into his own hands to try and catch the ones who did it. His life then is turned upside down, as he must look over his shoulder at every turn, or turn the tables on those after him.

I wasn't all that interested in "We Own The Night". Granted it had a good cast, a competent director and a decent story line, the trailers just never grabbed me. Nevertheless I gave it a try and it is exactly what I thought it would be, a decent film with great acting and good directing. "We Own The Night" is no "Departed", which is what many people will compare this to, as it came out the year prior and bare similar plot scenarios. "We Own The Night" is a decent film that can stand on it's own, but it's lackluster ending and stages where it drags on a bit stop it from being a film that might be remembered years from now.

Bobby is a night club owner and his brother, Joesph is the cop that raids his place. Joesph is after one man and one man only, Vadim. Vadim decides to send this cop a message and has him killed, but Joesph survives the attack. Bobby decides to take matters into his own hands, go undercover and stop Vadim from his drug running. Things don't go as smooth as planned and then we have a big shoot out in the drug building. This scene, along with a unique car chase scene later on, stand out as highlights in a film that is mostly talk. The car chase is unique in it's own right because most of it is done within the car, only briefly going outside to show the viewer where they are headed. It's pouring rain and the one sound that you cannot help but hear it the windshield wipers going back and forth, trying to give us a clear view of what's going on, but it's never clear enough for long.

Bobby is the main character, played by Phoenix with Wahlberg playing the brother, in a more supporting role. Eva Mendes and Robert Duvall round out the rest of the cast, both hold up well with what they have. Surprisingly Mendes, who has a real performance here. She genuinely loves Bobby and doesn't want to see him get hurt. Duvall, the father, always liked the one son more then the other, mostly because the son was following in his footsteps. With the small screen time both characters have, they manage to change drastically. Both in the opposite direction, one grows closer, while the other further apart. Wahlberg does well with his role, he doesn't have any material to work with, other then to be angry here and kind there. This film belongs to Phoenix.

A powerful performance is in the film and Phoenix delivers on every level. Bobby is a complex individual, we never truly know what he is thinking or believes. He is rolling with the bad guys and tells his family to screw off, yet will run to their aid when needed. Phoenix delivers this performance, mainly through his eyes. In one particular scene he is told about his brothers attempted murder and the man telling him is the man who did it. Phoenix plays both sides of the spectrum perfectly well, hiding his true emotions to the other character, yet showing everything to the viewer.

Gray uses light and sound to his advantage here. When one character dies, the main thing we hear is silence, with the exception of the rain hitting the floor. Gray also likes to use hallways, for instance, when Bobby is about to enter the drug operations room. He travels down a dark a brooding hallway, into the darkness he goes, into the danger that lies ahead. The film is never too bright, or too dark, it has mid grays and blues throughout. It's set back in the 70's and this feeling achieved right from the opening pictures.

The final climatic showdown is what brings this film down a notch. A good premise with bad execution is what happened. Two characters are traveling through a marsh field, one is after the other, the suspense is building...then we all of a sudden stop and set the marsh on fire. We are waiting for this one guy to come out and give up, all suspense is gone, but then Bobby decides to go back in, so we are suppose to go back in with him. They've already brought us in and taken us out, now they want us to go back on this journey with them. The second time we enter, the suspense has settled and the scene doesn't last long enough to try and rebuild it. It's over before it begins. Some plot holes also hurt "We Own The Night", like how some people know they are brothers, yet others have no clue. It would seem like someone would have known something beforehand.

All in all "We Own The Night" is a good film, I can recommend it to you. It has great performances, especially from Phoenix and good directing. IF the story was a little tighter and the final ten minutes more suspenseful, "We Own The Night" would be one everyone's top ten list, instead it might have to sit at the next number out. Which is a shame, cause this film is worthy of praise.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Across The Universe (Julie Taymor)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/across_the_universe/jim_sturgess/across1.jpg


"It's For People With ADD, Who Want To Go On An Acid Trip."


Across The Universe is a musical that tells the story of multiple people living in the time of the Vietnam war. A young man travels from Liverpool to find his father, but ends up falling in love with a young American.

Stanely Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was a a technical and artistically remarkable film, but it lacked a story, had a long running time and had very little entertainment qualities about it, which ended up hurting the film. Julie Taymor's Across The Universe runs down the same path, it's visually beautiful and full of life, but the lack of story and long running time does more damage then one would imagine.

Across The Universe is many things, but above all it is ambitious. It's a musical set to Beatles songs. In a time when the musical is pretty much dead, Taymor relies on visuals and the popularity of the Beatles to bring in the audience. It's a shame that that is all she relied on because the film is severely lacking many things. What it excels in, it does so beautifully, what it fails at is key to what connects the audience to the film. You can't simply have a character sing a verse of a song and expect people to connect just because it's the Beatles.

Across The Universe is for people with ADD and who want to go on an acid trip. The film has no real set course, it jumps from one song to the next and from one bizarre and beautiful image to the next. One minute you're with Bono on a bus, the next you're underwater naked. If you're able to keep up with the bombastic images thrown on the screen then you will really enjoy yourself. Every image that is shown on the screen is ripped straight out of a Beatles song. When you hear Strawberry Fields Forever, you see Strawberry Fields. This could ruin some imagery you might have while listening to those songs.

The film changes it's direction, from the journey of this young man, named Jude, to the anti war movement with Lucy. Yup, those are their names, along with Max and Prudence and Sadie. All the character names are taken out of the songs as well. Also, it doesn't take a genius to know that the song Hey Jude would inspire this character to do something. The characters, who all are modeled after icons in the music industry, such as Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Kurt Cobain, have very little are no arc. With the exception of the two leads, Lucy and Jude, both acted very well by Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess, everyone seems to be one noted. Sadie has one conflict in the film, it is never explored, Prudence has lots of conflict, that is never explored. Prudence even disappears half way through the film, only to show up again at a hallucinating sequences.

A lot of the images are beautiful and you will without a doubt encompass it all, but there are still some that are too bizarre to connect to the story. One scene we see Asian woman naked, with their bodies painted white who stand on water, then they dive backwards under it. What does this, and many other symbolic elements mean? We are never told and can't sit and think because the next image is thrown at us right after.

You will be tapping your toes to the music and singing along as well, if you know the lyrics. There were two or three songs I didn't quite know, but I'm sure the hardcore Beatles fans will know them all. Although, not all the songs are happy dance numbers. Some of them are poorly done, surprisingly I Am The Walrus from Bono is one of them. Jor Cockers take on Come Together is a highlight as well as the army sequences performed to She's So Heavy.

Across The Universe is ambitious, beautiful and will have you singing along to the tunes. It's about thirty minutes too long and has very little character development and plot, but the story is there. It's just sung aloud in song and not really performed. If you can get pass a lot of the obvious film images and metaphors, like Prudence coming out of the closet, then Across the Universe is a film for you.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks for the interesting reviews :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

No Country For Old Men (Coen Brothers)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/miramax_films/no_country_for_old_men/josh_brolin/country2.jpg


"Confident Filmmaking From The Coen Brothers"

A man finds 2 million dollars in the desert, after a drug deal goes wrong. He makes the mistake of going back, and it soon chased by other men who knew about the deal. Now it's a game of cat and mouse between him and a hit-man hired to take him out, with the sheriff on both their tails.

The Coen Brothers are back to the big screen in this intense blood soaked thriller starring Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem in the lead roles and Tommy Lee Jones plays the Sheriff who's seen too much blood shed in his time. All three give stellar performances, but it's Javier who stands out in the mix, as the heartless psycho killer on the lose. The intensity in his voice is enough to make you squirm. His portrayal of the assassin looking for the money is frightening and along with Bill from the Kill Bill films, one of the best villains of the past decade. Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast, be it seems like no stretch for him. Brolin surprised me, he carried the film very well and did what was needed to be done.

There are bits and pieces of dark humour throughout the film, which is a great way to let you relax after the intense moments that are everything else. Even with the bits of comedy here and there, No Country For Old Men is the most mature piece of work from the Coen Brothers. So confidently directed there is no musical score throughout the film. Instead, we are taken directly into this world. We are no longer watching a film, we are apart of the cat and mouse game. Right from the squeaking of shoes on a tile floor of a man being strangled to the beeping of a transmitter signifying impending doom. There is no need for music, the performance speak for themselves.

There many intense scenes in this film, one in particular is when we do hear that beeping sound, we anticipate what's going to happen. Great visuals and sounds are used throughout this scene. Along with that audio sound is the visual. An unknown predator lurking in the shadows. We can't seem him, but we can see the bright light from his gun. The cinematography is beautiful. Right from the opening scene, we get a sense of the world these people live on. The open range of the desert.

The violence is grounded. You won't see people jumping through the air wielding two guns as doves fly away in slow motion. The villain uses a compressed air tank to break into rooms and kill innocent people. Not only does the villain kill the so called "bad people", but innocent bystanders as well. The man is so psychotic that he will decide your life by the flip of a coin.

With all the good must come the bad. The film is indeed very good, but it can't get over it's own praise. The fault with films like this is that is rarely lives up to it's praise. While this film is indeed good and one of the years best. I wouldn't ranked it up there with films like Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction. No Country for some reason sat odd with me as the credits were rolling. I liked it a lot, but I wanted to like it even more. There was one scene in particular that caught me off guard and I didn't really like, but I can't say what it is without spoiling the film. Also the ending, this is the big discussion of the film. Many people loved the film up until the ending. Well, throw me in the boat as well because I did not dig it very much. The last bit of the film seemed to drag on. The characters had nothing left to do, the story was over, yet the film kept rolling on. It seemed like it was trying to go for some closure, but never really gets there.

All in all this film is great and certainly in the top ten films of the year. But, much like the character who can't call the coin for you, because it wouldn't be fair, I can't "tell" you to go see this movie...you have to call it (or see it) yourself.

4.5

[nebbit]

This starts here this week, can't wait to see it,:yup: thanks for the review :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Juno (Jason Reitman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_searchlight/juno/_group_photos/ellen_page4.jpg

Jason Reitman scores with another comedy - one of the year's best

Juno is a 16 year old girl who one day discovers she is pregnant. First she wants an abortion, but then soon realizes she would rather have the baby and give it to a family in need of one.

When Thank You For Smoking came out it was the biggest surprise of the year. A dark comedy that wasn't afraid to give it straight. Confident directing lead a strong cast. This year, Jason Reitman is at it again with Juno, a heart-warming comedy that...again, tells it like it is. This time we follow a young girl, played strongly by Ellen Page as she faces the world with a bun in the oven. Juno is not your typical teenage girl, she can't even classify herself in one niche. Page brings a heart-warming and grounded performance that comes off as strong, yet vulnerable at the same time. She is supported by Michael Cera, her goofy best friend, who is also the father of her baby. Cera again plays the character of George Michael. We also saw this same character in Superbad earlier this year. It's not a bad thing, Cera has the awkward comedy timing down pat, but he needs to break out of that character and move on to bigger things.

Her father, J.K Simmons and step-mother Allison Janney support Juno through her hard time. Both seem more eager to help Juno through this, then to throw her through a wall, which is what would normally happen in other flicks. Janney takes her to her ultra-sound test and defends her when her teenage motherhood is brought into question, Simmons accompanies her to the adoptive parents house, to make sure she isn't taken advantage of. The adoptive parents are Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. An odd pairing if you ask me, but both play their characters very well because it suits them as so. Bateman is a man trying to get back his youth, while Garner is desperately in need of a child to call her own. While it is odd to see the two paired together, they work very well when they are apart.

Jason Reitman shows us that he is not simply a one trick pony. With the success of his first feature "Thank You For Smoking" and this year's "Juno", Reitman is on the fast track to becoming the hot new thing in Hollywood. His care and attention for the film is apparent throughout. Juno at the abortion clinic is so paranoid and on nerve that she freaks out at the smallest things, which happen to be the little things people are doing around her, like scratching their arm or biting their nails. The emphasis of the sound on these small insignificant things, make them significant. His care for these characters that were created by Diablo Cody is from the heart. These people are every day people, with everyday problems. He knows this and shows this. Being pregnant isn't Juno's only problem, she has to deal with the people in her life who can't seem to find love. She needs reassurance that there is love out there.

The screenplay at first seems to be trying too hard to be smart and funny, but once it gets over itself, it becomes just that. The dialogue is quick and funny and said with ease from the actors. The story is simple and charming, yet feels complicated and depressing. Juno knows what she wants, but the world seems to be crashing down when things don't go her way. The amount of care put into these character are enormous, they are not here to simply tell a story, there are here to be the story.

The one fault is not from a writing standpoint, or technical or even from the acting. It's more personal. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that the film take a small detour from it's warm hearted comedy and goes into some depressing serious scenes. It didn't work too well for me. Although it is believable and contributes to the story, I felt that it would have been better if it had left that part out and taken a different turn.

Juno is this years "Little Miss Sunshine". Full of heart and charm and will entertain you to no end. It has a great soundtrack to boot. The music fits the film perfectly with mood and story. When 2007 saw pirates, ogres and superheroes flying around, all it took was a 16 year old girl to win our hearts and our attention.

4.5

[nebbit]

Great Review, it has inspired me to catch this movie sometime :yup:

[susan]

thanks for the review...i've heard a lot about this.. as nebbs said, it's inspired me to see it...

[TheUsualSuspect]

I Am Legend (Francis Lawrence)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/i_am_legend/will_smith/iamlegend11.jpg


Great Special Effects & Premise - Mediocre Delivery

After a so called cure for cancer mutates the host into a vampire like creature, 90% of earth's population ends up dead. One man, who is immune to the virus, stays in New York to find a cure.

I Am Legend is the third film to be made from the book with the same name. The first two, The Last Man On Earth and The Omega Man, I have not seen. After viewing Legend, I can only hope they both have a stronger second half and conclusion, because Legend fails to capture it's audience in the third act.

The idea behind Legend is great and the in the right hands, the possibilities are endless. After viewing Legend I found myself wondering why it feels like two different films. Years prior Smith starred in a film about Robots taking over the city. In I, Robot the machines climb building walls, crash through glass and will not stop until they kill everyone. The third act of Legend follows the same structure. I couldn't help but picture the vampires as the robots as the climbed buildings and ripped through ceilings. The vampires themselves aren't too impressive on the technical scale. Seeing them attack wasn't as impressive as it should have been. They looked way too fake and it took me out of the reality of the film.

The whole film lands on Smith's shoulders and he pulls it off. The isolation in such a big city takes its course and slowly he begins to lose his mind. He interacts with his dog Sam and mannequins at the video store so he can have some kind of interaction. Tom Hanks did a similar thing in Cast Away. The film starts 3 years after the virus hits and it's a marvel to see the city in the state it's in. The technology we've created is what killed us. The technology we created is what outlived us. Seeing the tall buildings stands still while there is no live around it was astounding. The grass creeping through the streets, the abandoned cars and live animals roaming the city of New York. The special effects for this film is the highlight. It creates an atmosphere that no other post apocalyptic film has ever created. It makes one wonder if this will be our future. If we all die, will the things we created live on.

While the film does try and get us to connect with the lead character at the beginning, it doesn't try to keep that connection. It moves into an action film and I suddenly couldn't really care if Smith lived or died. I felt more of a connection with the dog Sam then I did with Smith. The film works up until one point, then it seems to go downhill and never catches back up with itself. When two new characters suddenly appear on the island.

There are bits and pieces of the film that don't really make sense. Like how all the creature look exactly alike, but those small things aside Legend is an enjoyable flick. It has moments of intense scenes, but then it has moments that make you question why. Such as why there appears to be a leader in the vampire pack. The flashbacks that are used to tell what happened to his family during the contamination of the city aren't that effective. It would have been more useful to have the flashbacks told with different days, instead of one night. Seeing Smith learning new ways to cope with his surroundings, meeting the infected for the first time, anything would have really worked. But they never took that advantage. It would have worked to connect us with Smith's character.

While Legend does have the performances or the conclusion one would hope, but it is worth a look at for it's special effects alone. It has it's fair share of problems, it stars of slow and ends fast. It's a mixed bag, the story is great, but presented on an average form. The special effects are astounding, but some of it look fake, like the vampires. In the end I did enjoy myself and that's what people look for at the movies.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks for the interesting review :yup:

[Lennon]

I like the first two "I am Legend" films better

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Bucket List (Rob Reiner)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_bucket_list/_group_photos/jack_nicholson7.jpg


"Humorous Performances Make This Film Decent"

Two men have cancer. One is a family man working as a mechanic, the other is a wealthy grouch divorced at least 3 times. While getting to know each other they develop a Bucket List, a list of things to do before you kick the bucket. They decide, instead of having people feel sorry for them, they will do all the exciting things they want to.

On paper "The Bucket List" is a winning combination. It has two of today's most respected actors, a heart-warming story with some humour and a director with some decent films under his belt. In reality, the film is a ploy to try and tug on heart strings. Yet it works in a weird way because of the two leading men. Nicholson and Freeman, both fine actors seemed at ease with each other and made the ride a little bit more pleasant. If it weren't for these two actors the film would not have worked at all.

The film is lazy. It needed a way to get these two characters in one room together and threw in some dialogue to make it happen. Reiner has had many projects, yet many productions values here were poor. Continuity errors take the viewer out of the film experience, obvious green screens distract the eye and a hyped up, but lackluster bucket list doesn't really make the film what it wanted to be. What you see them do in the trailer, is basically what they do in the film, so other then the performances from two Oscar winning actors, these film has very little going for it.

I don't know if the screenplay was lazy, or if it were Reiner himself, but one scene that could have been emotionally charged and could have possibly helped Nicholson receive yet another nomination is dumbed down to nearly nothing. It's as if Reiner thought that Nicholson couldn't hold the scene together, so he had to shift his way around it. It doesn't work well at all and leads to bland editing. Nicholson is good enough to hold his own and just when you think your about to get something good, Reiner takes it away by showing us something else.

With what Freeman and Nicholson do have, they do very well with. They play off each other very well, which is awkward at first considering the kind of character Nicholson is playing. Sure we get a bit of him not wanting to be in a room with someone else, but then it seems like the next day they're friends. No hostility between these two before they decide to embark on this list? Nicholson was meant to play this character, sometimes a bit over the top, yet with a restrained tone. He hits every mark he needs to and Freeman does as well. Freeman is the usual cool headed individual and nothing really changes here, but seeing them laugh till they cry is certainly a joy.

Yes this film has narration and yes it is from the one and only Freeman. It seems like it is mandatory for him to narrate films now, as he is popping up everywhere. Was this a last minute thing to try and add some kind of level to the screenplay that wasn't there before? Actors can only do so much, the screenplay has to be strong in the first place and this is not really the case.

Like many critics have been saying the performances are great but the film isn't. I liked the performances enough to give the film a decent rating and a scene here and there were heartfelt, but overall the film doesn't really deliver. Maybe expectations were too high because of the people involved, but there was definitely something missing from this film. A spark that would have the audience drawn to it, it never happens. We are meant to have fun with these characters, Nicholson and Freeman try to bring the audience on the trip with them, but we end up just watching them have all the fun.

2.5

[mark f]

I'll watch The Bucket List when it comes to DVD, if only to see the teaming of Freeman and Nicholson, but you're review seems pretty believable to me. After I watch it, I'll try to comment vis-a-vis your review.

[Lennon]

I'm going to see it tommorow, or U23D

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy :) I will follow Marks lead and wait for this to come out on DVD :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Death Sentence (James Wan)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/death_sentence/kevin_bacon/death1.jpg

Slick Directing Can't Turn This Average Film Around.

After his son is murdered in front of his eyes at a gas station, Nick Hume, knowing the murderer will get out on the streets a few years later decides to take the law into his own hands. He soon finds himself on the run from the gang and desperately trying to protect his family.

This plot might sound familiar and that's because it's been done numerous times before with Bronson and coincidentally, the same year as The Brave One. Kevin Bacon plays the father who loses his son to a random crime and while sometimes his performance is lackluster, other times he seems to hit the right notes. His struggle with the death of his son, the horrors of killing another man and the fear for his family's safety takes a tole on a character and Bacon manages to pull it off in the end. This man goes from having the best life, to having next to nothing.

The film seems to flow in two different directions, thrilling and depressing. It's always hard to walk a fine line between two genres and here it works, for the most part. We never really get a chance to connect with the kid who dies at the beginning. The film opens with a montage of the kids life through a camera, then we see that he is a star athlete for Hockey and then he dies. If the film took another scene or two extra to set some kind of connection between this character, then the audience would be able to feel for Nick more. As a result, we never get the chance to feel what Nick is feeling. We know he lost his son and it is sad, but we are watching it and not feeling it. It's important for the viewer to feel this connection because that determines whether or not his actions are justified in the audiences eyes. Is one life for another justified? Nick makes the mistake of thinking so.

After he kills the one who killed his son (these are not spoilers because this is exactly what the film is about) his fellow gang members find out who did it and strike fear into his eyes. They attempt to kill Nick in broad day light, but it's unsuccessful, which then leads to a thrilling chase scenes, executed very well. While we may not think what Nick did was right, we do not want anymore sorrow it hit him or his family, we root for him to make it out alive.

The film does what I thought it would never do, it throws a curve ball. I was shocked and I applaud the filmmakers for doing so. It makes the events seem more realistic, not everything goes this characters way, there are bumps in the road and he's make that bumps bigger and badder. This event is so striking that Nick goes into a terminator mode, by shaving his head and loading up on a lot of guns. This is where the film takes a weird turn.

After having some trouble learning how to use the guns, Nick is off to end this war once and for all. Again, with a shaved head (actually a poor one, still some hair on the back side) he for some reason becomes a killing machine, wielding a shot gun, hand guns and Dirty Harry's favourite magnum. It's a stretch to believe this suit can do all this damage. Then again, one of the themes of the film is that you can do pretty much anything if the occasion calls for it.

While parts of the script are laughable, the direction is very well done. Young filmmaker James Wan, of Saw fame, creates thrilling chase sequences and nice camera movements. It makes up for some shoddy area in the script and the depressing scenes from prior. There is one sequence though that I couldn't help but laugh at, when Bacon walks away from a car unscratched, after having it plow through a van ripping it in half.

John Goodman has a small role and he seems to be enjoying himself here. Which is nice to see because everything else is....you guessed it, depressing. I have yet to see The Brave One, so there is no comparison here. I hear good things about Foster's performance and that film seemed to push this one out of the lime light. It's not that this film is bad, it just needs some work.

2.5

[Lennon]

Ah yes, been looking forward to this one,



also, how big is John Goodman's role?

[Lennon]

Across The Universe (Julie Taymor)




"It's For People With ADD, Who Want To Go On An Acid Trip."


Holy Hell! I have ADD and loved this movie!
P.S. I put +rep on all the reviews of movies I wanted to see

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ah yes, been looking forward to this one,



also, how big is John Goodman's role?

He's basically in three scenes.

[Lennon]

He's basically in three scenes.


alright, sweet,

I am going to rent it,




P.S. I just saw Shoot Em' Up :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Cloverfield (Matt Reeves)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/cloverfield/cloverfield2.jpg

"An Experiment In Film-Making Indeed"

Rob is about to go away to Japan for a new job, so his friends decide to throw him a good-bye party. The party is quickly disturbed by an earthquake, which is later discovered to be from a giant unknown creature terrorizing the city of New York.

To describe this film would be saying what everyone has been saying since its release. Cloverfield is Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project. This is not a bad thing; to negatives make a positive remember? If it weren’t for films like Blair Witch we wouldn’t have Cloverfield, then again if it weren’t for films like Cannibal Holocaust, we wouldn’t have films like Blair Witch. What Cloverfield does is take this idea and spin it on its head. Cloverfield is an experiment in filmmaking and it is quite successful.

Just like Blair Witch the film starts off with a message that this footage was found and we are about to watch this uncut material. For the first 20 or so minutes we get character introductions, these are the people who will be seeing the destruction through; these are the eyes and ears. We don’t get much characterization, but enough to know who’s who in the grand scheme of things.

We see a romantic sub-plot that will no doubt become more important as the film goes on; we meet our cameraman, a sarcastic guy who doesn’t have the guts to talk to this one girl, this one girl who is only there to meet up with her other friends later. We also see the main characters brother and girlfriend, but we never get to really know these people. Which is fine, we only get a glimpse into their lives because it’s all about the destruction right?

The destruction itself is very well done. This is where all the money went. No high tech cameras, just special effects for destruction for New York. Every bit of it was realistic. I was scared this was going to be another monster running around New York bit that Godzilla pulled on us, and yes while it is that, the film is much more. Not once did I ever believe anything in Godzilla, here I was entertain and engaged. I felt like I was actually watching real footage. The unknown actors were a good choice, it adds to the “found footage” feel.

The monster itself is cool looking as well. You never get a full view of it until the very end, but it’s the bits and pieces of it that make it scary. Reeves builds up great tension as the monster is roaming the city and we see the destruction from a distance, yet we still have fear that it could kill us.

In addition to the giant creature, there are little ones. Apparently they are parasites. They seem like giant spider-crabs to me and they are quite scary. I’m glad that Abrams and crew decided to go with something original and not re-tell Godzilla. This was a brilliant choice and helped the marketing of the film immensely. The sound is sharp and loud. Specifically when the army blasts away at the creature, it makes the viewer feel like they are there.

I never once felt sick with the camcorder shaking around everywhere, but others in the theatre were. They were also disappointed with the ending, as half the theatre moaned and asked if that was it. I don’t know what they were expecting, maybe some answers? Well you won’t get any here. We saw the destruction through the eyes of this camera; we don’t know what’s going on. The characters don’t know what’s going on, they speculate that it could be alien, or government secret. There is no scientist with a white lab coat here explaining what the monster is or where it came from. If you’re content with this then you’ll love this film.

Unlike Snakes On A Plane, which I loved by the way, this film lives up to the hype expected by the fans. All the speculations can go to rest Cloverfield is here. Now let new speculations arise.

4

[nebbit]

Seems most people like this film :yup: I will have to see it when it starts here :yup: Thanks for the review :)

[Lennon]

Yes, but eveyone hated the ending that I talked to,

[jrs]

I loved the film. I am glad they didn't explain where the creature came from or it's origin. It gives the audience something to ponder. Working at the theater, hearing that people come out of seeing Cloverfield and are throwing up I can't help but crack up laughing. I don't know why.

Anyhoo, I can't wait to pick up the manga prequel.

[Lennon]

To begin with, the children are not likable at all. The little one who is suppose to be cute is annoying, the younger brother is a pain in the ass, the older sister has too little screen time to make any kind of connection, while the oldest is just too dumb. Not to mention that all the actors playing them were annoying to listen to.
and that's from you Chronicles of Narnia review

My thoughts exactly! Except I picked on Edumond a bit more :p

[7thson]

Nice review of Cloverfield US

[TheUsualSuspect]

Been seeing more films and need to review them.

Hopefully I'll get em done this weekend.

Sunshine
Wild Hogs
Good Luck Chuck
Balls Of Fury
30 Days of Night
There Will Be Blood

[nebbit]

Been seeing more films and need to review them.

Hopefully I'll get em done this weekend.

Sunshine
Wild Hogs
Good Luck Chuck
Balls Of Fury
30 Days of Night
There Will Be Blood
Can't wait :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

There Will Be Blood (P.T. Anderson)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_vantage/there_will_be_blood/daniel_day_lewis/blood5.jpg


"Chilling, Haunting and Beautiful. There Will Be Blood - One Of The Year's Best"

Daniel Plainview strikes oil while mining for silver. Knowing the riches there are in this field he quickly changes his career and adopts a son after his father is killed in an oil rigging accident. Daniel's greed for power and money consume him and turns his loved ones into enemies and quickly becomes the target of a young pastor, Eli, to turn to God.

Every time you hear that there is a performance so good it will win an Oscar, the first thing that comes to your mind is how boring is the film going to be? Monster, Ray and Capote all suffered this fate of not being able to keep u with the performance. With There Will Be Blood, P.T. Anderson gives us a stunning film that is as chilling as the performance from it's lead actor Daniel Day Lewis. If the film itself doesn't draw you into it's web, the performance from Daniel Day-Lewis without a doubt will. As it stands, it is impossible for him not to be recognized this year.

For the first twenty minutes or so there is no dialogue. It's just Plainview working underground, he's dirty and broken, but manages to find a way to still get money. Later on he becomes an oil man and uses his "son" as a cute image to get people to side with him. Lewis is remarkable here as you've all been told. He becomes to character, he is the character. While there have been amazing performances in the past few years, this one is without a doubt one for the books. Even if the film isn't remembered fifty years down the road, DDL's performance will be. Paul Dano is the supporting actor as the young pastor Eli, he also has a smaller role as Paul, Eli's twin. At times Dano is frustrating, his overacting is obvious for the character, who drives demons out of the residents, but there are times when his stone cold face is just too bare. Hearing him scream and whine like a little girl every now and then is a bit annoying as well.

The cinematography is beautiful. Anderson knew exactly how he wanted this film to look like at he got his wish. The landscape is so beautiful, it becomes a character itself. It holds the oil or main character wants, the people who live on this land stand in his way. The film opens, much like No Country For Old Men, with views of the mountains and the land. Both films are beautiful to look at and watch.

P.T. Anderson's previous films are pretty fancy. With There Will Be Blood you can clearly see his maturity as a director. This is not to say his other films are bad, on the contrary they are very good. But There Will Be Blood seems to be in another category all by itself. It doesn't belong with the others, it stands on it's own. If you were to watch Boogie Nights one day and Magnolia the next, you would be able to tel it was from the same director. Here he manges to hide his style within the film so well that it doesn't jump out at you like the others. He is more restrained with fancy camera movements and more concentrated at what the film is about. It's about this man and his greed for working.

If the visuals are beautiful, then the music is chilling. Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead supplies the film with the score it needs to be the film it wants to be. Without it, it might not have had as much of an impact in some scenes. It's the music that drives these few scenes and it works perfectly. The thing that makes it work so well is that it's unusual and bizarre.

There Will Be Blood is one of the years best films. It has one of the best actors giving us a powerful performance for the ages and a score that is chilling to the bone. There are bits and pieces of comedic fare, but most of the film is dark, much like the main character of Plainview. The final act of the film is heartbreaking and shocking. If you didn't like the ending to No Country For Old Men, you might not like this one that much either. While it is a more finished ending, it does kind of just happen. But it goes out with a bang and yes the film does live up to its title.

4.5

[nebbit]

Great review :yup: i am hoping to see it this week :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

I changed the first post.

I've taken out the colour scheme and posted the grades of each movie.

[Lennon]

I want to see you review Good Luck Chuck ;)

[TheUsualSuspect]

In due time my friend, in due time.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Good Luck Chuck (Mark Helfrich)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/good_luck_chuck/_group_photos/dane_cook12.jpg

"No Chemistry and No Laughs"

Charlie Logan is hexed as a kid after he denies a Goth in the "7 minutes in heaven" game. Years later the hex catches up with him and every woman he sleeps with finds their true love in the next guy they date. All is good as he has sex with dozens of women, until he falls for one. Now he has to resist the sexual urges, or she will find someone else to love.

Seems like a funny premise, has a beautiful lady and a funny guy for the two leads. Why doesn't it work? I don't really know why, all I can say is that it doesn't. If I were to take a guess though, it would be the next to no chemistry from Cook and Alba and the feeling that the film is purposely trying to push the bad taste button down our throats. Most of this button pushing is done Dan Fogler, Cook's best friend.

Let's get the most obvious reasons out of the way first. Alba cannot act. Sure she looks good in penguin underwear, but for the life of her cannot act. Seeing her in an R rated comedy is so out of place that is distracts the viewer fro getting any enjoyment out of it and since she has that no nudity clause, you know the only nude females you will be seeing are no name extras. Her character has a clumsy aspect to her, she destroys everything in her path. None of these gags work either, you know they are coming and are overdone throughout the film. For some reason she also has an obsession with penguins. I guess they were trying to get some kind of character arch here. Instead it comes off as a tail coat riding of other successful penguin films. I can see someone sitting in the office looking at "March of the Penguins", "Happy Feet", "Surf's Up" and thinking that throwing penguins in here will also get butts in the seats.

For my money, I think Dane Cook is a funny guy. Unfortunately he has yet to see a film to connect his stand up to the big screen. Employee of the Month could have been a great film but with a bogus plot, Andy dick and another pretty face who can't act in the lead it failed. Here Cook has the R rating to get his comedy style flowing, but it never works. Sure he gets a chuckle here and there, but he mostly looks bored. So does Alba, but she always looks like that. So far Cook has had two chances to shine in the lead and has failed on both accounts. I think he should stick to supporting roles like in Waiting, he'll be much better off.

Seeing Alba and Cook on screen together is like watching cousins trying to kiss. Completely awkward and wrong. Not once did I ever believe these character would be together, not even in bizzaro world. Add onto the fact that Dane Cook is a dentist. What in the world? When would this guy ever be a dentist? How about his best friend working right beside him...as a plastic surgeon who specifies in the breast enlargement area. Here is a guy who is more hornier then a 16 year old virgin on Viagra and he is able to become a plastic surgeon? At least 50% of the time I watched this movie I was thinking to myself that they only made it to show breasts.

Saying that, there is a montage in which all that happens in sex. Dane Cook has sex with dozens of woman and it is shown all at once. While this might sound intriguing, it is nothing of the sort. It's nowhere near as bad as critics have made it out to be. Nor is it funny. Sure you might snicker when most of the woman want to do others things while having sex, like read a book or pray, but snickering is all you'll get.

With every other romantic comedy Good Luck Chuck is structured. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fight, boy loses girl, boy fights to get girl back, boy wins girl. How many times have we seen the same thing over and over again? Will somebody....anybody....give us something new and fresh? If this film was made to push boundaries and be in bad taste with all the sexual acts and jokes, then why play it safe with it's conventional structure? Mix it up a bit, Alba should have fallen in love with someone else. If you think this is a spoiler, it's not, even a blind guy can see it coming.

Good Luck Chuck is funny on paper, not as a film. Fogler gets the most laughs, but they are few and far between. His character would have been a lot more interesting to watch in the lead.Hell, they could have even had some kind of emotional shift in this character. Here's a guy who loves naked women, have him change at the end because of the hex. Nope, they wanted an unfunny Dane Cook. Tis a shame.

As far as bad films of 2007 go, Good Luck Chuck makes the list.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ryan (Chris Landreth)

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/chris_landreth_1.jpg

"Beautifully Constructed and Presented - A Great Animated Short"


Ryan is an animated documentary about the artist Ryan Larkin. Through interviews with himself, family and friends we get some insight into the mind of this talented man.

Chris Landreth’s Ryan is a visual masterpiece of originality and passion. Landreth has taken us inside the head of an animator and it is a wonderful place to be.

What sets this film apart from anything else I have ever seen is the visual style that Landreth presents it in. Everything is CGI, computer generated images, but not in a way that anyone has seen before. It’s almost as if this takes place in another world all together. Characters have pieces of their faces missing, hair all over their body, or are just deflated. This style brings a unique visual experience to this film and takes it to a higher level.

Even though it is a short, clocking in at 15 minutes, I felt like I knew who Ryan was and his life. It shows great talent to get some kind of connection to the viewer in only 15 minutes. Landreth knew his subject well knew how he wanted to present him to us. The visual style in so unconventional that it takes multiple viewings to get any real sense of what's going on. Everytime you watch it you will discover something new.

We also hear from people in Ryan’s life who were close to him. These people are also shown to us in a bizarre way. Nothing about this film is conventional. At first the CGI may seem dated and underbidget, but the style and creative use of it makes up for it. Everyone who was a part of it was thinking outside the box, probably even further too. I have only seen this twise, but would be willing to watch it over and over again, because the film has so many things going on in it that I probably missed the first time.

Everything in this film is a character, even the drink that Ryan has. The thermos reminds Ryan to take a drink by extending it’s arms out and screaming, when Chris tells Ryan he thinks he should quite drinking, the thermos defends itself by giving Chris the finger. The central theme of Ryan is character. We see a glimpse into the life of this character and we are left wanting to know and see more. Beautifully done and well deserving of the Oscar it was rewarded.

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Jumper (Doug Liman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/jumper/hayden_christensen/jumper2.jpg

"Too Many Loose Ends For Jumper"

After falling into a lake covered in ice, David Rice teleports himself into a public library. He leaves home and goes to New York to hone his skills, which he uses to rob banks. After 8 years David finds that he's not the only one, and that there's been a war going on for centuries. Now those people sworn to kill Jumpers are after him.

Hayden Christensen was wooden as a board as Anakin in the Star Wars prequels, but out of nowhere showed he actually has some acting chops when he played a lying journalist in Shattered Glass. Well, now he's back in the sci/fi genre and for some reason he decides to jump back on that wooden board. I don't know why, but it seems that sci/fi films bring out the bad in him.

Jumper is an intriguing idea, it has the opportunity to bring a new series to film. The idea of people who can teleport to anywhere at anytime has been done before yes, but now we have people who have been sworn to kill them and that they've been doing it for hundreds of years. Sounds pretty epic, but Jumper doesn't really jump into any of that, they only mention it. Why? I have no clue, to me it sounded more interesting then what they were actually showing us.

The filmmakers had a great chance to go back in history and show us this war, as one character mentions, but not once do we get any idea of any of it. There is a lot more story to tell with these Jumpers, but we never get any of it, we only scratch the surface. Are they that confident that it will do so well that they will give a bit more in a sequel? Or did they really have no idea what they were doing and just hope the audience liked the jump scenes.

Those jump scenes by the way are nicely done. No, they never reach the coolness of Nightcrawler from X-Men 2, but they are very well done. One second your in New York and the next your sitting on top of Big Ben in London. With a film like this you know the special effects will either make or break the film, because so much of it relies on that. The believability that these people are actually teleporting themselves to another location. They pulled it off for the most part. My complaints are pretty much what other people will probably have. They teleport in open area, for everyone to see, but unless there's a fight going on no one seems to notice, or care. Also, wouldn't Christensen be really fat by now? 8 years of teleporting means he never moves anywhere. He won't even slide 2 feet over on a couch to get a converter. Does teleporting burn calories as well? You know those people sworn to kill them, one is Rolan, played by Samuel L Jackson. Jackson does what he always does, be a bad ass mofo. Here is sports white hair and spews off some dialogue that only God should be at all places at once. Are they the good guys? After all, our so called hero is robbing banks and breaking Italian Collisuem rules. Christensen isn't really likable, so many people will end up routing for Jackson to take him out. They fight scenes are too special, they consist of jumping and using a device that Scorpion from Mortal Kombat should sue for. Once you take away all the jazz from the jumping, you're left with nothing really.

The story is boring. Guy can jump, people find him and try to kill him, he gets away. In between he gets back together with a girl he use to like when he was a kid, they go to Rome because "hey, all girls will put their lives on hold to go to Rome with a guy they knew back in Highschool but haven't seen for 8 years...and maybe I'll have sex with him too." Bilson is cute, but she is given nothing to do besides ask questions. The real star here is Jamie Bell, who plays Griffin, another Jumper. He's the person we really want to follow in this story, he's funny, kicks ass and takes no crap from anyone.

By the time the film is over you're left sitting in your seat asking yourself, but what about this and what about that. There are so many loose ends in Jumper it's funny. We never know what happens to his father, we never know what happens to Griffin, we are never given anything but a sentence for a back story on these people. Also, the last 5 minutes seems like a last minute addition to try to tie one of those loose ends up. It seems way too forced, but you know it has to happen because there is no way this film can end without them going back to it. These loose ends will most likely be sorted out in the sequel. That's how films like this are probably going to end now, leave so many things unanswered that there just has to be another one.

Unless you want to see another special effects ridden sci/fi fest, skip Jumper cause there is no real substance. No real story or plot, no character development and no fun...well, there was a bit of fun, but there should have been so much more.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Vantage Point (Pete Travis)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/vantage_point/_group_photos/dennis_quaid1.jpg


Great Concept With Mediocre Execution.

Vantage Point tells the story of the assassination of the president of the United States from 8 different viewpoints. We see the people trying to protect the president, the media, civilians and the people taking out the attack.

Vantage Point's is Rashomon for today's audience, minus the talent and brilliance. The whole idea behind of Vantage Point is to tell the audience that everyone has their own perspective on things when in a crisis situation, then of course at the end it decides to tell us the whole story. This concept is really intriguing and could make a really intense action thriller. Vantage Point is indeed tense at times and has a really great car chase sequence, but the absurd plot and useless sub plots are too much for it's own good. It feels as if the film is trying to be to smart for it's own good.

We start off from the viewpoint of Sigourney Weaver and the media. She is the director of the station that is broadcasting the president. This is the perfect way to open the film because it is the closest thing that we, watching on TV at home, will get to see. The only information we know is what is shown to us. Bang, the president is shot, boom the stage explodes and then the film rewinds 23 minutes earlier to 12:00 noon and now we are seeing the event through the eyes of Dennis Quaid, one of the secret service agents protecting the president. The film tells everyone view in about 15 minutes or less, then rewinds to noon every time and then goes to another character. IT becomes very redundant and will no doubt get on people's nerves.

This is why the execution is not as good as it could have been. It could have been a new and innovative way of seeing things, but instead we literally see the events rewind and the clock strike noon 8 times. As repetitive as this is, it does keep things moving along nicely. The film never moves at a snails pace and it shouldn't. Since we know what happens, we sit there waiting for these things to happen every time. During Whitakers viewpoint I found myself sitting their simply waiting for the explosion to happen so it can get on with the story.

There are a lot of things going on in Vantage Point...a lot of things. Double crossers are being double crossed, think of the movie Heist. There are also dozens of characters, characters we never get to know. We get a quick back story on Quaid and know he 'took a bullet' for the president sometime ago and now he's back and that Whitaker has a family back in the States, but other then that we never get to know any of these characters or any explanation for their actions. Then again, that is the point of this movie. So it's safe to say the whole point of this movie is also its weakness.

That weakness is because of the script. There are many times when you have to throw logic out the window here, just to buy some of the things that happen. While the car chase scene is quite thrilling it would never ever happen. For one the streets are way to narrow and populated for these cars to be swerving in and out of. Also one of the vehicles takes a beating, yet keeps on ticking. It takes a giant truck to finally put it to rest. The subplots don't add anything to the film either. One character is doing things because the bad guys have his brother hostage. This subplot could have easily been taken out of the story and nothing would have changed. All you need to do is make the one guy simply be a bad guy instead of trying to save his brother and the same tasks can be taken out.

Vantage Point is not a bad film. Like Jumper I tried to like it, but there are just too many things about it that hurt it. It tries it's hardest to come off as a smart action thriller, but it's faults are too much to be forgiven. Enjoyment can be had, if you're willing to not take anything it shows you to be based on a certain reality.

2.5

[John McClane]

I gave it one more star than you because I went in expecting a mindless thriller, and I got a mindless thriller. As for Jumper, I actually gave that one a 3.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I see, I would have enjoyed it more if it didn't try to be so sly about everything.

[christine]

you do very interesting reviews - thanks :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Nines (John August)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/newmarket/the_nines/ryan_reynolds/nines4.jpg

"It Keeps You Guessing Till The Very End"

The Nines tells three short stories, the first of about an actor who is under house arrest after flipping over his car, the second is about a writer who's pilot TV show is in jeopardy and the last deals with a video game designer lost in the woods after his car breaks down. All three stories are told with the same actors.

When I first heard about The Nines, everyone was raving about how original it was and how it was like nothing they have ever seen before. So obviously it peeked my interest. After finally watching the film, I can see where it gets it's praise, but don't fully understand why it's getting so much of it. Yes, The Nines is original and keeps you guessing until the very end, but the pay off isn't as good as the rest of the film.

This is John August's directorial debut, if you don't know who August is, he's the writer of such films like Big Fish, Corpse Bride and Go. The Nines is another impressive entry to his already good resume. It seems that August was confident enough to tackle this big project. I applaud him ambitions. He didn't fail by any means, but he didn't blow me away either. It is always a love hate relationship when the writer is the director. When it works, you get Pulp Fiction, when it doesn't you get Blade Trinity. When the writer is the director, he knows exactly what he wants, he knows the characters inside out and how to bring everything together. The Nines doesn't seem to fall into either category, it seems to sit on the fence.

Ryan Reynolds proves again that he has more range then people give him credit for. He might have painted himself into a corner with Van Wilder and Waiting, but he seems to be slowly breaking free of it. He showed range at the very end of Smoking Aces and in the recent rom com Definitely Maybe. With The Nines he again proves why he is underestimated and will bring greater things in the future. Reynolds plays the lead in all three shorts. We see him as a crack addicted actor, gay writer and family man video game designer. While he doesn't blow you away with his performance, he does manage to capture you and bring you along for the ride from start to finish.

Hope Davis appears here in a supporting role, again playing three different characters in all three shorts. She manages to get so much across the screen by doing so little. A look here or move there and you know exactly what she is thinking. Melissa McCarthy plays herself in one segment, I think she had the hardest job. She has to be bubbly, scared, mean and informative.

The three segments are all shot differently. The first segment, titled The Prisoner, showcases bright reds and yellows and was shot on 16mm. The second segment, titles reality television is shot on video. The entire segment plays out like a reality TV show as we follow Gavin (reynolds) and his troubles in trying to get his pilot on air. The third and final segment, titled Knowing, is darker and shot on 35mm. The third segment has the same title as the pilot that Gavin in the second segment is writing. Even the same events take place. Without giving too much away, all three segment interconnect with each other. But not exactly in a way you want or think.

If you are confused after watching the film, join the club. I knew what happened and sort of got some things, but had to read up on it to see what others thought to finally connect the dots. The films does a very good job of teasing the viewer with bits of information and bringing them along asking questions left right and centre. As the film concludes you sit there wondering if you are satisfied or not. I still do not know really. I like the idea behind the film and the presentation was nice, but the way they dragged us along seemed like it would amount to something bigger, something deeper, something more then what we are ultimately given.

The film doesn't answer everything and it doesn't need to. It's a film that leaves it's answers up to the viewer, to make whatever assumptions they want. But even this isn't satisfying enough. I guess because all the hype I head prior, I expected more. If you go into it not knowing anything about it, you will be pleasantly surprised.

3.5

[nebbit]

Thanks sounds interesting :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Iron Man (John Favreau)

http://images.google.ca/url?q=http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20080502/475_iron_man_080502.jpg&usg=AFQjCNFbbspcD48H6iWt33hbZ882wqkZ3A

"Iron Man Is Made Out Of Gold"

Tony Stark is a wealthy weapons manufacturer on a routine trip back from a demonstration of his latest weapon, when he is attacked by rebels who want him to build his latest weapon for their own evil gain. Taking shrapnel to the chest, he must have a pacemaker like device on at all times in order to live. After escaping his captives, Stark sees a new side to life and wants to protect the people who have died from his weapons. Thus creating Iron Man.

I've read a few issues of Iron Man, enough to know what the story is about, who the characters are and what to expect from the film. I never went in with high expectations, wanting it to be the best thing since sliced bread, and I left the theatre with a smile on my face. Iron Man is the firs real summer blockbuster movie to grace the screen in a long time. Filled with humorous dialogue, great casting and high flying special effects, Iron Man is one of the best comic book adaptations ever put to film.

With the announcement of Robert Downey Jr. playing Tony Stark, I knew John Favreau was the right man for the job. Downey has shined a light on himself so bright that I expect more leading roles to come his way. With perfect comedic timing and a dramatic arc to boot, he has created one of the most compelling comic book characters on film to date. With Peter Parker we are beaten over the head with his love for Mary Jane and his guilt for his uncle, we never really get pass this. X-men has too many characters to keep track of for us to emotionally connect to one central character. Iron Man manages to make a womanizing, alcoholic, weapons manufacturer actually likable. All of that is because of Downey's charisma.

Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't have much to do here, but she makes the material work. Howard was a little off his game. His presence wasn't there. It seemed like he wasn't confident enough in this role and it was really out of place. Jeff Bridges is menacing in the looks, but comedic in the dialogue. I don't know if it is my hours upon hours of Lebowski watching, but I just did not find Bridges voice to be menacing at all. I kept hearing the dude. He wasn't threatening enough.

Iron Man sets itself apart from other comic book films (except for Batman Begins) with how serious it is. The film prides itself on being more realistic then what one would think. This is accomplished by focusing more on the man inside the armor then the high flying rocket shooting, breaking sound barrier hot rod red "superhero". This is because Iron Man is simply that....a man. He has no special powers, no enhanced ability. He has loads and loads of money.

The problem with most origin stories is that it has to set everything up. It doesn't have the time to have fun with the story and make it seem really dangerous to the characters. Iron Man has a lot of set up and little delivery on the action. There are two scenes in which Stark throws on the suit and does actual battle. Not including the cave made promo device. This has pros and cons, it does make the film seem more plausible. I believed a lot of what was happening, until the final fight scene. Unfortunately, that final fight scene doesn't knock anyone's socks off. It doesn't blow our minds, it's too generic and the suit, environments and weaponry were not used to their full potential.

The special effects are well done, nothing too jaw dropping. It seemed like the crew knew what they had to do and just went for that. Nothing seems to be trying to grab our attention, it all fits naturally. Some scenes are bit off and noticeable CGI is used, which may be distracting to the eye. Specially when Downey is sitting in front of the TV and he has the armor suits arm on his right arm.

I'm impressed with Favreau. I wasn't a big fan of Elf and Zathura was garbage. With Iron Man Favreau has found his calling. I hope he doesn't try anymore kid films and sticks to what he knows and does best. He never let the content get away from him, considering it is so huge and upon first glance, would seem out of his league.

Iron Man is a fun ride that kicks off the summer blockbuster trend. While it is not as good as X-Men 2 or some other comic book outings, it is indeed one of the strongest ones. With the inevitable sequel, we will get to see what Iron Man can really do.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Speed Racer (The Wachowski Brothers)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/flickr/05/68/002381130568.jpg?x=660&y=660&sig=HZ.AZWu_Kxnl8yj3EDqMWQ--

Can A Film Be Too Close To It's Source Material???

For those not familiar with the story, Speed Racer is not what this film is about, but who it is about. Yes, Speed Racer is the main characters name and that is exactly what he does. After the death of his brother, Speed follows in his footsteps to become the worlds fastest racer. His speed and talent catches the eye of a big rich racing company who offers Speed more wins and more money. When Speed declines, he learns the truth that the grand prix is fixed and they knew the winner of each race all along. Now it's up to Speed to win the big race and show the corrupt business side of everything.

Whether or not this makes sense is of no importance. I don't really think people are going to see this movie for it's deep plot, character development or even creative twists in the storyline. Instead Speed Racer expects to see it's audience that want to be gasping at the insane races, vivid colours and tongue in cheek comedy. Speed Racer has all this, maybe a bit too much, and none of the former. I've never seen a single episode of the cartoon, but in the style the bros have presented this film you can tell immediately that they stuck pretty close to the source material. Knowing the Japanese animation style, Speed Racer has captured it pretty accurately. My only concern is, was a story like this meant to be made into a live action film? I can appreciate the film for what is tries to achieve and respect it for that. The racing scenes are indeed spectacular, but the is what is expected. We all knew that the film would have crazy racing scenes that bend the norm of our world and it did just that. The race scenes make the viewer more interested in wanting to play them in a video game. They make the viewer want to be involved, instead we have to sit there and watch other people on the screen have all the fun and excitement. It kind of gets a little bit upsetting.

There are vibrant colours all throughout the film, like a lucid dream. Most likely exactly what the filmmakers wanted, it plays out like a dream from Hunter S. Thompson. It is exciting for kids, headache for adults. The use of colour and the detailed eye to the surroundings make the film seem more like an experiment in the digital era, rather then an attempt to make an actual film. The one thing that kept going through my mind was how this film would look on Blue-Ray, not what was actually happening on the screen.

The film has many missteps, the main one would be the editing. The entire opening sequence the details the reason for Speed's reason for driving is horribly done. It plays out exactly like a racing video game and jumps back and forth between time lines. Let me explain. Rex, Speed's older brother, who holds racing records all over the world leaves the house to race in a dangerous tournament, this is inter cut with Speed racing trying to break his brother's current record, his brother is also racing the same track, but it is Speed's memory of it. If you've ever played a racing game, it's exactly like you trying to beat the your previous time on the track and you are racing you're ghost car from before. All of this is confusing at first, and once you get a grasp of what is going on, the horrible pacing settles in. They use a lot of super imposed images of people crossing the screen to move to the next scene. It's when the camera paces across a character's face and an entire different scene is behind them. They over use so much that in one particular scene there are more then a dozen characters on the screen all inter cutting each other.

Yes the entire film is based on a cartoon and that is exactly the way it plays out. Everything is over the top and corny. A little too much if you ask me. The violence isn't harsh, people blow up in their cars, but it won't scare kids. Although, the random appearance of ninjas might. Yes, John Goodman fights a ninja in this movie....then says this exact line. "Ninja? Ha, more like a Nonja". That is the kind of dialogue this film has and it hurts to listen to it.

The actors aren't really given anything to do. Goodman and Hirsh are the highlights as expected. I wanted to like Fox and Racer X, but his monotone delivery and the story behind his character is just too bland. The conclusion at the end of the film with Racer X seemed tacked on and out of left field. As if they needed to beat us over the head with answers that they audience already knew, even though they were told something else. Christine Ricci and Susan Surandon are given absolutely nothing to do in this film. They are filler, eye candy at most. The young boy and his ape sidekick are there for comic relief, but it tends to be the same joke over and over again with them. It gets tiresome very fast.

In the end, the film is more for pleasing the eye. The poor editing and over the top cartoon style is just too much of a distraction. The story itself isn't very engaging and the people involved don't even seem to know what's going on either. The film has many problems and too few entertaining points. If a racing scene couldn't save The Pantom Menace, it can't save Speed Racer.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Southland Tales (Richard Kelly)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/samuel_goldwyn_films/southland_tales/_group_photos/dwayne__the_rock__johnson7.jpg

Weird For The Sake Of Being Weird?
Or Simply A Lost Message...

If I were to sum up the plot or the story of Southland Tales, I'm sure it would confuse you. So I'll pass all that and simply say that it is about the end of the world and the key players who bring it to it's destruction. Even though this might sound cool, it really isn't and this entire plot is lost in the film. It seems as if Kelly was so hell bent on matching his success of Donnie Darko that he tried to create another film that would take multiple viewings to decipher, the main problem is Southland Tales isn't good enough to warrant multiple viewings.

Even though Donnie Darko confused the hell out of many people (myself being one of them) it did have a strong narrative that people were able to grasp. With Southland Tales, it goes in too many directions that it gets lost in it's own story. Nothing seems to make sense. It's almost as if Kelly thought we would know exactly what he was talking about and not try to explain anything, or fill in the gaps. This is the main problem with the film.

The script is very uneven and it doesn't help that nothing is explained in the film. You can see it on the faces of the actors themselves. They have no idea what is going on either, and it shows in their wooden performances. You know you're in trouble when the best performance in your film is from a former wrestler. Things just seem to random and nothing seems to fall in place. The film had great ideas, but they are never fully realized or explored. The film never feels sure of itself, so much that it doesn't even know which characters to follow.

The cast is very bizarre and is not really believable. You have Jon Lovitz playing a "bad-ass" cop, are we suppose to take him seriously? In his one important scene it seems as if he can hardly hold a gun. Sean William Scott is surprising, but plays the role dull eyed. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a porn star who bigger dreams then just porn. None of this is ever followed, only mentioned. The Rock plays the total opposite of what the public knows of him, he is scared, nervous and pathetic. It is interesting to see him try and add something to a role that has nothing to begin with. The rest of the cast sees SNL members, highlanders and Justin Timberlake. Timberlake's role is still lost on me. One thing is for sure, Timberlake has the most memorable scene in the entire film, in which he has a drug hallucination and starts to sing a Killers song. Timberlake isn't the only singer though, there is also Mandy Moore, who does nothing but whine and complain. Kevin Smith has a small cameo role, upon first glance he is unrecognizable, but once he speaks he sticks out like a sore thumb.

The film tries to seem more important than it really is. It's message about society is lost in it's complex and confusing story line. I wanted to like this film, I enjoyed Donnie Darko and did not want Kelly to be a one hit wonder, but after this it is hard to see him regain his status. I really want his career to survive this mess. Unless he goes on and makes another Southland Tales, then he will be known as a poor man's Lynch.

The film looks great and Kelly creates a world that lives outside our own. In the end the film is frustrating, not knowing if it wants to be sci/fi, action, or comedy. A film shouldn't need graphic novels to explain things, it should be done the first time around. Unless you've created a world so deep that hundreds of stories can unfold (Star Wars, The Matrix). Southland Tales is not one of those worlds. You can tell how ambitious this film is, after a poor performance at Cannes, Delays and Re-cuts, it had 'DOOMED' written all over it. It seems that it couldn't get out of that hole. For a film with great ideas, it is poorly presented, confusing and boring.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (Steven Spielberg)

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/_group_photos/harrison_ford19.jpg

"Crystal Skull Suffers From The Star Wars Syndrome."

When Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade came to theaters in 1989 I was only 2 years old. That is the same age as newcomer Shia LaBeouf and had never seen Indiana Jones up on the big screen. In fact, as a kid my favourite one out of the three was Temple of Doom. As I grew older and appreciated the art of film-making more, I found myself leaning more towards Raiders of the Lost Ark, with Last Crusade in a close second. Flash forward to 2008 and Indiana Jones is back, only much older. I re-watched the original three, as I'm sure almost everyone did, to get myself in the mood for the old whip slinger. The main problem with Crystal Skull is it had to please fans after 19 years of build up. So it was bound to fail (in one way or another). In that light, it suffers from the "Star Wars Syndrome." Upon watching Crystal Skull you have to immediately compare it to the other films. In doing that, even before seeing the movie you knew it wasn't going to be better then Raiders and those who though it would be would leave disappointed. Well, I didn't think it would be better and yet I can't help but feel disappointed in the final product of the film. While it does have the essentials to make an Indiana Jones film, there are too many things that they seem to have skipped in order to make an actual great film. Thus we have to settle for something that is simply good, which is fine, but not when you are Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones has crossed his way into the new age of film and George Lucas seems to have brought the heavy duty CGI with him. This has many pros and cons. While the CGI can create elaborate and exciting action sequences, it can't help but feel fake. The car chase through the jungle is exhilarating and ranks up with the some of the best action sequences in the series, but it is ruined with ridiculous scenes of sword play and Tarzan swinging, both from the same character. A character who seems to only have been added to draw a younger crowd and possibly pass the torch on.

Therein lies a problem with the script, it's characters. Allen is given absolutely nothing to do but bat her eyes at Ford. In Raiders she was a tough broad, here she has nothing. Winstone plays Mac, a good/bad guy who adds nothing to the plot whatsoever. Cate Blanchett seems to be having some fun in her role, yet her character is no where as evil or memorable as previous 'villains' in the series. It is mentioned she has psychic powers, yet that aspect is never explored. LaBeouf, I have always been a fan of. He has comedic talent, from his Disney days and can handle action films, as evident with Last years "Transformers". Ford of course still has his Indy chops, he actually looks like he is having fun again. It seemed that age got the best of Ford in the recent years, but here he engages more. Then we have hurt we seems to be there as an excuse to get characters to where they need to go.

In the Indy series there has always been a suspension of disbelief. The Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant and Sacred Stones don't really seem plausible. Yet we took it at face value and since all of those artifacts were based on our history it had a certain bit of grounded reality to them. Crystal Skull throws all of that out the window and deals with aliens. Sacrificial cults and ancient religion people can understand, but once aliens from the, and I'm quoting a line in the film, "the spaces between spaces" nothing seems plausible. This is the bit of the film where it seems to falls of the horse. Seeing Indy find treasures of the past is what the series was all about, with this film he seems to find things from the future. It doesn't jive very well with me. Spielberg needs to get off his alien fix in his films.

It also seems like Spielberg is slacking off, as the was very evident ADR with Ford's lines. This type of stuff could easily be fixed, with cutaways, yet Spielberg for some reasons focuses on the character when this is used and it stands out like a sore thumb. The overuse of CGI doesn't feel like an Indy film either, more along the lines of a National Treasure or Laura Croft. Speaking of National Treasure, it seems like Indy is taking notes from Ben Gates. There are clues left for him throughout the film, but none of them reach the level of National Treasure or even The DaVinci Code. Now code breaking wasn't a really big thing for Indy, he dabbles a bit, but here it seems more important. Yet it is treated as a mere side road. Which is essentially fine with me, but the make it seem bigger then it is, and instead of breaking the codes later on they just listen to the old crazy guy who tells them exactly what they need to know.

Indy is indeed back and the adventure and fun is there. That is what it is really all about. The fun and magic of the movies, right? If you can believe that three people can jump out of an airplane on a yellow raft and survive the fall into some rapids, then I guess you can believe a car driving over a cliff falling safely on top a tree top. Which safely places them into the water, then swings back and hits the bad guys. Convenient right? I guess the thrill and adventure of Indiana isn't the same, since so many films since the original three have ripped it off left right and centre. It seems that this films is doing the same, which is odd.

3

[Iroquois]

Shame, I was actually looking forward to watching Southland Tales. Think I might still try it if I have a better movie on hand to cancel it out.

[nebbit]

Southland Tales (Richard Kelly)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/samuel_goldwyn_films/southland_tales/_group_photos/dwayne__the_rock__johnson7.jpg


boring.

1.5
I am not a big fan of this either :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Mist (Frank Darabont)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/stephen_king_s_the_mist/themist_walking.jpg


Writing This Review....My Jaw Is Still On The Floor From The Ending

After a freak and powerful storm, Drayton, his son and their neighbour ride into town to grab some supplies from the local supermarket. Upon arriving at store, it seems almost everyone in town had the same plan. A man bleeding from the nose runs into the store screaming about something in the mist that attacked him and took his friend. The mist rolls in and everyone is trapped inside, scared of leaving because of the creatures the dwell within it.

When I saw previews for The Mist, I wasn't too impressed. I thought it was going to be another run of the mill Hollywood horror film that wouldn't be scary, thrilling, gory, tense or have any characters that I could give a damn about. That was even with Darabont behind the camera. After finally seeing it, I sit here wrong on all counts. The Mist is just as thrilling and scary and tense as you want it to be, yet it falls short in many areas, mostly out of frustration on my part.

Thomas Jane isn't the best actor around. When you fight fight sharks and John Travolta how far can you really go into a character. Here he gets the chance, being a father who must take care of his scared son, act as a leader in the store and ultimately survive the horror that awaits him outside. Now he does try here, but it comes off as some twilight zone B movie acting. Which is, what I can only assume, is what Darabont wanted. His screaming in the film's conclusion is hurtful, both in terms of acting and in sorrow for the character. His son is given nothing to do but cry and be scared, which you can guess is exactly what a little kid would be in this situation.

The tension created is great, the mist rolls in and everyone is stuck inside. We don't know who or what these things are, but we know we are in for some scary things. Then we actually see them and that tension goes down a bit. In scenes in which the creatures interact with the humans, it comes off as fake and cheesy. By itself, it is quite neat, but still not truly horrifying. I felt like they missed a chance with some tension in the audio department. It starts off nice, with an alarm alerting the town of danger, but after that we get things that are few and far between. For instance, while we are in the mist, to build tension we could have heard the creatures crawling around. For people at home it would be great with surround sound. The only instance I remember them doing this was in the pharmacy.

I like that we don't know for sure where these things came from, and the sci/fi element is a neat addition. If we were full blown told what these things were and where they came from it would ruin the ambiguity of the whole film. This film stands out for me because of the way it was shot, very surreal, hand held and in the moment. If everything were nicely panned and smooth flowing, it would feel to fake.

I have two gripes, which is why the film is rated lower then what this review if praising it for. One, for those who've seen it know where I am going, is the ending. I won't spoil it for you, but you will either like it, or hate it. Which is ironic because I am on the fence with it. I applaud them for throwing a curve ball and showing us something that is so anti-Hollywood, but I felt cheated. You don't invest two plus hours into these characters and then pull off something like that. I called the ending....as a joke. I didn't expect it to be true. It's not really a twist, but what happens is shocking.

Second, the characters. I have never hated so many characters in one film. The Jesus freak stands out as one of my most hated characters in cinema history, right up there with Franklin from Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I know she was suppose to be hated, but I just couldn't stand her at all. While watching the film, I put myself in some of the characters shoes and I would have never let that woman done half the stuff she did. Also, how do 90% of the people in there fall victim to her babble? I could understand some people following her, but with her reputation and the amount of hate people had for her it was too unrealistic to see so many do her bidding. Whatever happened to people banding together to defeat evil, not turn on each other. Are we as humans so disgusting that when we are thrown into danger we kill one another. That isn't what America would have you believe, especially after the 9/11 attacks. I literally got up out of my seat and cheered at one scene, which finally shut her up.

The Mist is a hard film to like all the way through, it pulls you in so many different directions that you feel uneasy about it as a whole. It is skillfully made and 2/3 of it is horror classic. Yet it doesn't fulfill what I wanted it to, which is a shame because I really liked it.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Happening (M. Night Shyamalan)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_happening/thehappening_cop.jpg


"Great Ideas Don't Always Make Great Films"

The Happening tells the tale of a phenomenon sweeping the country, in which people are killing themselves for no reason at all. At first people believe it to be a terrorist attack and they flee to the country side in hopes for safety. Unfortunately it's not terrorists, but something worse, something that cannot be explained, or escaped.

Every time M. Night comes out with a new film, I get a little interested. Not full blown, I don't go opening night waiting to see a masterpiece, but I do respect the guy because he knows what he's doing. I think he's had the unfortunate task of being pegged as 'one of those film makers'. If you go see a Kevin Smith movie, you know you're in for dick and fart jokes, you go see a Tarantino film, you know you're getting into something violent. With M. Night, everyone expects a twist. When the film doesn't end with one, people groan, and if it does, it doesn't match his previous effort. It seems he can't get a break. Well, The Happening isn't going to help his case either.

First problem is the script. While the idea is great and could potentially work, it has to many problems that throw the main interest aside. First, the characters, which coincidentally ties in with the acting. Mark Wahlberg I have no problems with usually. He always seems to have a soft spoken voice in every role, sometimes it works (Boogie Nights) sometimes it doesn't (The Big Hit). Here it goes totally wrong. He just doesn't come off as believable. Not once did he ever seem like he was really scared, not once did I ever take him for a teacher, and not once did I ever believe he was with Deschanel. These two characters never really engage the audience into their lives, I found myself not caring if they made it out alive or not. The random subplot with the guy calling her on the phone never flourishes into anything for the two, never causes and real drama or problems and ends up being a distraction and waste of time. The most interesting character in the film cuts his own wrists early in the movie.

Second, the script never offers us any real scares. This ties in with the way M. Night directed this feature. Most of his films deal with tension, he builds it up and takes the audience on a ride. Here he misses the mark completely. The most 'tense' moment is laughable, the try to outrun the wind. There is no real threat here. Had this event made people kill others, then we would have some tension on our hands, but the entire premise if that people kill themselves. I think M. Night tried to scare his audience with the fact that they could not see the enemy, this is a failure.

The film was marketed as M. Night's first R rated film. One gets the impression that it could be pretty gruesome. Yet it is held back. A lawnmower scene that should send shivers down peoples spines is ruined by fake CG blood spray. In that same shot a sign is the background that reads 'You Deserve It" and I can't help but get the feeling that M. Night was never trying to scare us in the first place, but teach us a life lesson. Be kind to plants? This shot was too on the nose to be a simple wink in that direction. Maybe this is why the film doesn't work, M. Night isn't trying to scare us at all, well congratulations for suckering an audience into seeing something that turned out to be something completely different. It's the village all over again.

The Happening is an unfortunate mess. M. Night had some decent ideas and great shots (I still love the workers falling off the building shot) but nothing to tie everything together. The film suffers from a lazy script that can't bring the good ideas to the surface and mismatched casting. It's looks like M. Night is even now, 3/6 in terms of his films in quality. It's a shame that those 3 that aren't good are his latest ones. It's hard to tell is he will get out his this hole he has dug himself. If he will continue a career a become an actual film maker worthy of discussion years from now, or one of those one hit wonders who burned all their gas too quickly. If The Happening is a sign of where things are going....then there are dark times ahead.

1.5

[mark f]

I'm getting the feeling that this film probably isn't that bad, just like Cloverfield wasn't that good. People's reactions are all tied to expectations and often, false assumptions. I'm guessing, Yoda, that you didn't watch Unbreakable at the theatre, did you? Well, my wife and I did. Even though I give the film 3, the packed crowd I watched it with, on opening day, booed and yelled at the screen at the ending as they got up to leave the theatre. Of course, as always, Brenda and I watched the credits straight through to the end, but the crowd which was expecting The Sixth Sense II was really violently opposed to what they got. On the other hand, at the ending of Signs, I don't recall any hisses or boos. Signs was the last Night flick I saw at the theatre. Almost everybody and their evil twin seemed to love The Sixth Sense at the time of its release.

P.S. My fave scene in Unbreakable is the one where Willis finds a family held hostage, apparently in their own home, with the parents seemingly murdered. Willis makes his way up to a second story bedroom, and there is an awesome fight scene, with incredible music, where the combatants are each trying to break the other's back, and it all culminates in a surrealistic scene in a swimming pool with a cover. That scene was totally whack and unbelievable! I also like the ending and the way the film tried to recreate the imagery (including the borders [framing] of a comic book), but it was incredibly slow-paced. Night does move his films along rather slowly.

[Yoda]

I'm getting the feeling that this film probably isn't that bad, just like Cloverfield wasn't that good. People's reactions are all tied to expectations and often, false assumptions. I'm guessing, Yoda, that you didn't watch Unbreakable at the theatre, did you?
I did, actually. My theater might have been anamoly, but everyone laughed at the right times, and seemed pretty enraptured throughout. I liked it quite a bit right off the bat, but only loved it after we spent the entire car ride home talking about it.

P.S. My fave scene in Unbreakable is the one where Willis finds a family held hostage, apparently in their own home, with the parents seemingly murdered. Willis makes his way up to a second story bedroom, and there is an awesome fight scene, with incredible music, where the combatants are each trying to break the other's back, and it all culminates in a surrealistic scene in a swimming pool with a cover. That scene was totally whack and unbelievable!
Great scene! The attention to detail in that sequence is unbelievable, from the glimpses of the two children from beneath the water, to the sudden way the Orange Man appears in-between flutters of the curtains. And the music is perfect throughout (listen to part of it here (http://www.movieforums.com/misc/Unbreakable Soundtrack - The Orange Man.mp3)).

I don't know if I have a favorite scene, but that'd certainly be a finalist. I'd also nominate the scene in the hospital just after the crash (love the bandaged man in the foreground), and the "morning after" scene, and the wordless conversation he has with his son about the night before.

http://twitchfilm.net/site/images/mastheads/Unbreakable-sh.jpg

And the opening birth! What a grabber. And the train sequence, even though it's so hard to watch. And almost every scene with Robin Wright. I really don't have a logical stopping point here...I could go on forever.

I also like the ending and the way the film tried to recreate the imagery (including the borders [framing] of a comic book), but it was incredibly slow-paced. Night does move his films along rather slowly.
It is slow, though I tend to think of it as "deliberate." Potay-toe, potah-toe. I love the build up. I love the restraint. The Sixth Sense was pretty slow-moving, too, but when you're engrossed, it doesn't matter. With Unbreakable, I was hooked from the very beginning, and I'm still hooked today.

[Yoda]

Gah. I started listening to the clip I posted (the beginning of which plays when I have voicemail, by the way) and now I have to watch it again tonight.

[Sedai]

Unbreakable is absolutely STELLAR. I saw it in the theater, and loved it.

4_5

[Powdered Water]

I said it in The Happening thread and now I'm a saying it here... I get the feeling that I'm going to dig this. I don't think he's gone 3 for 6 I really like all of his films in different ways.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/the_incredible_hulk/theincrediblehulk_green6.jpg


"The Incredibly Average Hulk"

After testing an upcoming project on himself, Dr. Bruce Banner becomes a giant green monster, known as The Hulk. The father of his girlfriend is a general who wants to capture the creature and create an army of these monsters.

After The Hulk disappointed fans in 2003 because there wasn't even 'Hulk Smash', the people in suits decided to give it another go, this time less talk and more walk. This time there were changes all around. New director, new leads and a new HULK all together. This time we have a more gritty and mean hulk, yet at the same time it has that campy feel that throws back to the old TV show. While the new version is better then what Lee gave us a few years back, it still isn't an eye popper.

Out is Bana and in is Norton. A stronger actor, yet he is in unfamiliar territory. Norton is not really a blockbuster star, which begged the question "Are they really going to make a blockbuster Hulk, or another artistic piece". Norton brings more depth to the character, yet with the ongoing drama that plagued the film it is hard to tell what more he wanted to do with the character. William Hurt replaces Sam Elliott as the General, he chews the scenery he's in and plays up the comic book bad guy role very well. Finally Liv Tyler steps in for Jennifer Connelly, much like the last film that character isn't given too much to do except cry for Banner. Tim Roth makes his way into this film playing a bad guy yet again. He isn't given much to do here either and the reason behind him becoming what he becomes is a bit eye rolling.

Another problem the first film had was that the Hulk itself was too fake looking. This time they tried to ground this beast in reality a bit more, yet it still feels out of place. He is less green and a tad bigger I believe. While I still am not a big fan of this character he works better here. The Hulk finally sees his match here with the villain and no he does not battle with rabid overgrown dogs. The fight between these two beasts is action packed as they tear up the city (half of which was filmed in my hometown).

As decent as this film is it doesn't leave a lasting memory. It's a loud and fast paced action film, which is exactly what it should be. It will please those who might have wanted more from the first one, which took itself way too seriously. There's fun to be had here, watching a giant Hulk destroy army vehicles will please action junkies. But we are now on a high lever for comic book films. No longer can you just make a decent comic book film, you need to wow the audience and leave a lasting impression. The Incredible Hulk doesn't do this. You walk in, enjoy the two hours and then leave and don't really talk about it anymore.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

WALL-E (Andrew Stanton)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/wall_e/walle6.jpg

"Pixar Has Yet Another Incredible Film Under Their Belt"

WALL-E is a robot left on Earth to compact garbage into little squares after humans have left because the planet can no longer sustain life. 700 years of doing what he's been programmed to do and his only companion is a little cockroach. One day a giant space ship lands on earth and sends out a robot named E.V.E who must complete a classified mission.

As soon as I saw the teaser for WALL-E I knew it was going to be something special. What I did not know is that it is one of the most original and entertaining films I have ever seen. Pixar has an incredible list of films under their belt and is the leading studio in animation, WALL-E have a spot at the top of that list and has set the bar for future animated films.

Why does WALL-E stand out from the rest of the animated films that have come before it? Is it the incredible detail in the animation? The lack of dialogue for it's main characters? The epic adventure? The story or morals? Wel, it is all that and more. The first half of the film has WALL-E doing his daily routine of garbage compacting. Without a single word spoken we know everything we need to know about this character.

The old saying of "show, don't tell" is used here and perfectly I might add. Through the endless fields of garbaged packed to level the skyscrapers we know that WALL-E has been here for hundreds of years and that the world is nothing but a baron desert. We know that we as humans did this to ourselves. We are given a quick back story through futuristic billboards that activate on motion when WALL-E passes them. WALL-E collects items from the trash that he finds interesting, everything from an iPod to a Rubik's cube. He examines them and tries to learn them, as if an alien from another planet were to come to earth and try to learn about our species. E.V.E arrives and WALL-E instantly falls in love with her, trying to win her affection at every turn and she turns him down every time because it's not her directive.

This first half of the film has the most realistic looking creations I've seen in animation. Every close-up of WALL-E (pecifically when he plays his radio device) looks amazingly realistic. Almost as if this is occurring in our world, it's not until we get to the second act that we begin to see more vibrant and animated aspects of the film. After WALL-E offers E.V.E a plant he found, she scans it and takes it. The ship she arrived on comes back, we begin to put thing together and WALL-E hitches a ride into space, a place he only dreams of. The mother ship is where all the humans are, they are fatter now because they are waited on hand and foot by robots, they are driven around on hover chairs and are constantly talking to another on a futuristic video phone, so much that they don't even realize the place around them. They don't even need to get out of the chairs to change their clothes, one press of a button and you go from a red suit to a blue one.

The film throws back to the days of silent films and the lead character , WALL-E manges to show more emotion in a single look then some of the finest actors today do in whole films. The introduction of humans is when 90% of the dialogue kicks in and the plot is kicked into motion. I won't give it away because it is an important part of the story. The appeal of WALL-E is universal, everyone can connect to him through his actions. He is a cute, lovable and ultra-cool robot.

WALL-E has been roaming Earth for so long that he takes the parts of other WALL-E robots so he can sustain his directives. He's rusted and falling apart everywhere, yet has a big heart. E.V.E is sleek and beautiful, yet dangerous. She can destroy you in a blink of an eye. These two robots are obviously from different worlds, have different directives, yet share a connection. What most animated lack WALL-E has. Most animated films as of late (Save for PIXAR) aren't adventurous enough. Kung-Fu Panada stays within the village. Even the Shrek films seem to be lacking in adventure. Both of those films created worlds that could go on forever, yet they never explore them. WALL-E seems bigger then it actually is and it's ten times more entertaining.

It's one an only fault is that t becomes too preachy. It has a message and it gets it across, but it seems to beat you over the head with it. It's forgivable since the film flies through it's running time and has a grand epic scope of adventure that kids will love and adults will cheer. This is the first time I actually loved an animated film. Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Ratatouille are all great films, but I never had a strong connection to them as much as WALL-E. WALL-E is one of the best animated films of all time.

4.5

[Lennon]

It's one an only fault is that t becomes too preachy. It has a message and it gets it across, but it seems to beat you over the head with it.

You see this was one of my problems, it seemed like it wanted to have a preachy theme, but I never really thought it developed those themes fully.

[mark f]

Nice review, Suspect.

The plot, all by itself, would suggest a theme of conservation and less consumerism. If they truly do bludgeon you with what's inherent in the story, I'll probably find it unfortunate, but I don't especially find that theme to be political. I'd consider it more of a universal human theme. I'll check back after I watch it tomorrow with the family.

I'm wondering if I should use this ("Suspect Device" by Stiff Little Fingers) as your theme song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwVT5Ys_64E

Oops, more politics.

[nebbit]

I want to see Wall-E :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/flickr/29/90/002614232990.jpg?x=660&y=660&sig=FK1I49PVJ_yvdmSjPPqPpA--

"The Dark Knight Breaks Comic Book Adaptation Barriers"


A new villain is in town and he's a homicidal clown known as The Joker. Batman must do everything in his power to stop him, while Harvey Dent takes the lime light as the new face of good.

Not since The Matrix Reloaded have I been hyped to see a film. Where Reloaded failed to deliver on that hype, The Dark Knight soars with bright colours. Is it everything that a Batman fan wants it to be? Yes. Is it everything a film lover wants it to be? Yes. The Dark Knight takes you on a ride through action, suspense, humour and drama. It rests in a genre that makes you suspend a little reality. This is the comic book world, where there are green monsters, flying men in tights and teenagers swinging around in New York. Very bright, very over the top and very fun. The Dark Knight turns all of this on it's head and delivers a raw, realistic and genre defining film. Along with Iron Man, The Dark Knight sets a new standard for comic book adaptations.

Without a doubt, every review the one will read will praise the chaotic energy that Heath Ledger gives in the role of The Joker. Can a role really live up to such hype? Yes, and this is it. Heath Ledger goes where many people do not. He becomes the character, he becomes the Joker. Nicholson played the part well, but Ledger embodies it. Every little quirk, from the flicker in the eyes, raising the eyebrows or using his tongue to wet his lips, draws you into the character. It's safe to say the Ledger does indeed steal the show from everyone and the film knows this too. It's a shame we will never see where Ledger career would have gone, because this role is juicy and Ledger nails it.

That's not to say that everyone else isn't good either. Bale brings more tragedy into the heart of both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Even with the world around him crumbling down, he still stands for good. Michael Cain reaches more depths with simple looks in his eyes. Both Alfred and Fox have moral dilemmas in this film, both play them well. Oldman has more screen time here then he did in Begins and he takes the character of Gordon to new heights. We know him as a good cop that doesn't conform to the corruption, but here his range explodes into more emotional decision making. Aaron Eckhart has the most troubling task here. He must play two completely different roles, within the same character, and we have to believe the transformation. His anger and hate mixes well with his confusion in what to do after his 'accident'. Finally Gyllenhaal, replaces Holmes. The character finally has some more range, but Gyllenhaal doesn't get enough screen time to bring it to us. Again, it's sad to say but this is the weakest link. It may just simply be the character.

Everything about this film hits the nail on the head. The acting is top notch, no longer are roles in comic book films cheesy or one dimensional. These character are psychotic, dangerous, funny, defenseless and everything more you can ask for. Back when these characters could never be taken seriously, now are awing us with their presence. The script is fabulous. Every line of dialogue spoken by The Joker is chilling, now times that by ten because Ledger somehow gives the lines more chills. The action sequences are entertaining. We have car chases, fight scenes, race against the clock bits and anything else The Joker can come up with. With ever scheme he tops himself in the absurdity and craziness. More action then it's predecessor, more drama, more villainous and more dark. This isn't your Adam West Batman. This is Nolan's Batman.

Nolan has recreated what once was lost. When nipples and bad ice puns were where these characters were, now are set back in the right motion. Nolan has given us, not only the best Batman movie, but the best comic book movie. You don't need high theatrics to create a great comic book film, you need substance. The Dark Knight has boatloads of this. I found myself wanting more of the Joker, I was so enthralled by the character and the performance. I found myself in awe of where the film goes, in terms of plot and character development. I applaud Nolan for not making a happy go lucky film, but for given The Dark Knight his true colours. He's a tormented soul, the events in this film push him to the limit, to his breaking point.

There are some minor setbacks though. I wasn't too thrilled with the bits in Hong Kong. Trims here and there could have saved the running time, which clocks in at 2 hours and 30 some odd minutes. As well as too many scene where the camera decides to spin around the characters a couple times, it gets a tad annoying.

The Dark Knight will break barriers. Comic book films will be more serious, more character and plot driven then CGI laden. Heath Ledger will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a sick and twisted clown. People will want to see what happens in this world and the people in it. The Dark Knight does create a new world, a world of fear and excitement. Where in some cases you kind of secretly want to root for the bad guy. This is a world I applaud, this is a film that I applaud. This is a perfect example of what a film should be.

4.5

[Iroquois]

I couldn't have said it better myself. ;) Good work.

[nebbit]

Good review :yup: thanks sussy :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Doomsday (Neil Marshall)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/rogue_pictures/doomsday/leanne_liebenberg/doomsday2.jpg


"Mad Max....On Steroids"


Yet another film that deals with a virus that kills humanity, well, actually it's just Scotland. A wall is build around the island to contain the virus. Years later it is discovered that there are still people alive within the walls. Thinking there is a cure, a team goes back to retrieve it.

I've been fan of Marshall since Dog Soldiers. He manges to take an old and tired genre and create something new and exciting out of it. He continue this with The Descent. That film turned out to be one of the scariest films of recent years. Now Marshall has a bigger budget and a more ambitious project. Doomsday is Marshall throwback to cheesy 80's action films. So much that the film itself doesn't feel original at all. Well, it isn't, but it is sure as hell a fun entertaining ride.

Doomsday basically takes all the ingredients from campy action films and throws it in a blender. The two most obvious influences are Mad Max and Escape From New York. The lead character even has an eye patch to boot. You can call it a rip-of or a homage, either way it is a fun film. You really can't take anything seriously, you just sit back and enjoy the popcorn film as it is. If you do this, I guarantee you'll have a good time.

The lead actress, who looks almost exactly like Selena from the Underworld films, plays our heroine. Just the right amount of tough stuff needed to get through this journey. In a list of badass female heroes, Rhona Mitra's Sinclair would make the list. Along side characters like Ellen Ripley and Betrix Kiddo. The acting from the supporting characters, including one Bob Hoskins, and the lead herself are decent. The villains do a lot of screaming and looking freaky. A nod has to be given to the make-up and costume designs. Everyone looks like they are straight out of a Mad Max film, complete with custom made death vehicles and super hot tattoos. Well, at least on one female character, who gets way too little screen time.

The film manages to balance a wide variety of genre pretty well, including medieval times. While the castle and horses bit of the film is where it begins to lose some steam, it doesn't ruin the film. At first it may seem out of place, but then you realise that this is a new world that has been created an it fits nicely. The film goes between the Mad Max, medieval and virus spreading genres a few times and it may feel like you're watching completely different films, but that uniquely adds to the fun.

The film is quite gory, more so then I thought it would be. I should have expected it to be though, considering in Marshall's earlier films he has soldiers duct-taping their guts back into their stomaches. This gore adds a horror element to it. We aren't use to seeing all this blood and guts in films other then horror. It adds a another level of enjoyment to Doomsday. That' if you're into that sort of thing.

In my books, Marshall is 3/3, in terms of quality and entertainment. He's shown us he can scare us and entertain us. I had my doubts about this film, thinking the bigger budget would ruin Marshall's film-making style. I was wrong. It's Marshall's talent that makes Doomsday stick out from the other virus infected films and it's that talent that makes him a director to watch for the years to come.

I mean honestly, how many films can you see a decapitated head screaming while flying towards and hitting the camera???

3.5

[nebbit]

Thanks :) I have added it to my bigpond movie list :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Be Kind Rewind (Michel Gondry)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/be_kind_rewind/jack_black/bekindrewind2.jpg



"I Was More Interested In The Sweded Films...Unfortunately."

When a man's brain becomes magnetized by a freak accident, he unintentionally destroys all the VHS video tapes in his friends video store. Being the only store left that sells VHS, they can't buy any new copies anywhere and have to please the customers before the owner comes back from a vacation. So they only logical thing to do is re-create the films themselves.

I don't really know what I expected from this film, Gondry is a visual genius and all of his films are incredible imaginative and his latest installment, Be Kind Rewind, is his most commercially accessible film yet, which may be why it has a lot of problems. My main problem with this film is that is would be better suited as a student film and it feels like it as well. It comes off as a fan's way of giving props to the films he loves and this problem is because of the script.

I never really connected with any of the characters. Which is a shame because I'm a student filmmaker. I never got the feeling that Mos Def cared for what he was doing, only doing it to get the "business" going, which is why the entire film at the end didn't work too well for me. Black seemed restrained here, which is odd because in a film like this you would expect it to ask more from a talented comedian. Glover is getting old, he he fit perfectly in the role of the old timer who owns an old and failing video store, in an old and crumbling building. Diaz seemed really thrown in, just for a female character to interact with the two leads.

Be Kind Rewind isn't your typical comedy, it doesn't go for obvious jokes, or gross out humour. It relies on the audience to know their film history and simply "get it". If you've never seen 2001, or Driving Miss Daisy, you might not get the comedy here. The film also has heart and soul, which is really lacking in films today, specifically comedies. The community that is brought together in the film and while it may seem cheesy, it is heartwarming.

As a film student, I can appreciate the way they sweded the films and they look like they have incredible fun when doing so, but it is not that easy. I liked how they cut corners with the low budget they have, which is actually no budget. The spirit of film making is there and I respect and connect with that on every level. So much that I wanted more of it, not just a montage (even though it was an incredibly well done montage).

In the end, I wanted to really like the film, Gondry is a talented filmmaker with a creative imagination and the talent to bring it to the screen. But, Be Kind Rewind fails to crack that genius he has and makes it way to us as a decent film, that could have been so much more.

3

[nebbit]

Sounds interesting may add it to my must see list :yup: even though I am not a big fan Jack Black :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Tropic Thunder (Ben Stiller)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/tropic_thunder/_group_photos/ben_stiller3.jpg

"Ben Stiller Should Stick To Directing"

After a big movie explosion goes wrong (they didn't even film it) the director is talked into taking his actors of the new film tropic thunder, into the real gritty war world. What the actors think are scenes being filmed for the movie is actually drug criminals and real war.

Tropic Thunder is a fresh dose of comedy during a time when we have been overloaded with Apatow produced films. Not saying his films are bad, but they do follow a certain path and they all have the same feel. I wanted something different and not something that The House Bunny or the next "Epic Movie" could offer. Enter Ben Stiller, who has had some trouble as of late with the films he has been in. Tropic Thunder isn't a big change, but it's a refreshing change and one that I welcomed and enjoyed.

Ben Stiller's previous directing effort was Zoolander. That film is really hit or miss. I found it to be stupid, yet in a funny way. It knew it was stupid, unlike other films that try to be funny and completely miss the tongue in cheek aspects. Where that film made fun of models, Tropic Thunder makes fun of Hollywood. Frm the hilarious trailers at the start to the way people like agents and producers act behind the scenes. I loved the look of this film, it is almost the total opposite of what and how war films are shot. It's too pretty to be a war film and it works with how these characters live in this world. They are oblivious to most things...even when there is a dead body.

The film starts of strong and ends strong as well. It's the middle act where it has most of the problems. Even if you can see the joke coming, you still laugh because of the delivery, good job for the actors on that one. Sure Ben Stiller is paying the same character again, but it works in this film. He manages to make it a little more fresh then stale. I wasn't too impressed with Jack Black, but he does get one of the best jokes in the entire film. (The bit when he is tied to the tree). Robert Downey Jr. is getting the praise here and he deserves it. Being in both Iron Man and Tropic Thunder, in which he steals the entire show, this is his year.

The film is more vulgar and violent then I thought it would be. Most of the gore happens in the opening of the film during the filming of the war movie. It is over-the-top and pokes fun at how blood filled war films are. But it may catch peple off guard who are put off by that sort of thing. There is also quite a bit of swearing, but most of it is from a character who isn't involved in the 'war'. While I found both of these aspects funny for the film, others may not.

Tropic Thunder is decent, I enjoyed it, was expecting a bit more on the parody of war films, we get Platoon, but where's Deer Hunter? I probably enjoyed it more because it pokes fun at Hollywood and the go around of it all. I tend to gravitate towards that style. All the cameos are great. I don't want to ruin any of them because that would ruin the joke. I can see why some people may not like it, it has been done before and may offend some people. I didn't find any of the Simple Jack bits that funny. While you may not think the film is up to par with more intelligent comedies, it is a nice breath of fresh air.

3.5

[Iroquois]

I wasn't too impressed with Jack Black, but he does get one of the best jokes in the entire film. (The bit when he is tied to the tree).

I was wondering if anyone else was going to mention this. Say what you want about his character as a whole, but the whole "swallow the gravy" exchange was one of the best moments in the film IMO.

P.S. You going to review Pineapple Express at all?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Burn After Reading (Coen Brothers)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/burnafter.jpg



"The Coen Brothers Rush Burn After Reading"


After a disc containing the memoirs of a recently fired CIA analyst ends up in the hands of two dim wits who work at a gym, they go around trying to sell it thinking it contains important classified CIA stuff.

The Coen brothers are taking a different shift from last years highly praised "No Country For Old Men" and going back into their comedy genre in which they seem to excel at. Here is a film that is full of characters that do stupid things, at yet we still seem to like them. Even when they are hacking away at other people. While "Burn After Reading" is a decent film, the entire project feels rushed and the ending too forced. It's as if they had no other way of ending the film, so they tack on the wrap up job.

The film opens with the firing of John Malkovich, because he seems to be an alcoholic. We are introduced to his wife, Tilda Swinton, who is having an affair with George Clooney. Clooney is also married, but is not satisfied with just those two women, so he begins dating Francis Macdormand. She has been trying to find love online with no luck. Her co-worker, Brad Pitt, finds the disc with the CIA stuff and they both begin to blackmail Malkovich. Somehow these stories intertwine with each other in a dark and humorous manner.

Everyone involved seems to be having fun. Brad Pitt and George Clooney are specially funny in their roles. One as a young, gum-chewing, doofus. The other as a paranoid treasurer who decides to build a very unique chair. Both Clooney and Pit are playing against type. Which is nice to see from such big A list actors, in a comedy anyway.

McDormand is another one to watch. She seems to slide into this role perfectly, nailing every bit of dialogue that comes out of her mouth. It seems natural, even though most of the dialogue is not. Malkovich is the alcoholic CIA analyst who is mentally breaking down. Losing his job, cheating wife and other things. This character is dragged through the mud until he decides to explode. Malkovich plays it with a sense of integrity. An upper class way of presenting himself, much like how he portrayed himself in "Being John Malkovich." Tilda Swinton seems to have the cold hearted bitch role down pat.

For those expecting a laugh out loud comedy, you'll be really disappointed. "Burn After Reading" is a slow moving film. It wasn't until half way through did it really start to kick up and peak my interest. There are a couple bits that are really funny, and others then just seem out of place. Don't expect it all to but fluffy funny stuff, this is a dark film. It is a Coen film after all.

J.K. Simmons has a small role as a CIA supervisor who has no idea as to what is going on with these character. The audience feels the same way. While it's not entirely hard to follow, some people may have some problems with it. I guess that could have been there intention, especially with how they ended the film.

While "Burn After Reading" is good, it's not Coen good and that may disappoint some fans. But the film is basically about stupid people doing stupid things, done in an intelligent way. The film has a few surprises, I was caught off guard at least twice. I just hope they put more time and effort into their next project.

3

[7thson]

I saw Burn After Reading tonight, and I agree with much that you say. As with most Coen films, you get it or you don't, or if you don't you do not care because it was plain fun anyway. I put myself into the latter category. Oh sure I get the movie, but I do not get it Coen style. I had to refill my soda twice because of the dry wit, but oh I love that dry wit. I give it a 3.5/5.

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy for a great review, I am going to see this for sure :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ghost Town (David Koepp)

http://www.exclaim.ca/images/up-ghost_town.jpg



"Gervais Makes This Clichéd Rom-Com Watchable"

After dying for a little less then seven minutes after going in for some minor surgery. Dentist Pincus begins to see dead people. The dead people, finally having someone who can see and hear them, try to get him to finish their business so they can finally leave this world. Only problem is Pincus is a loner who hates people.

It's Ricky Gervais' dry humour and wit that seem to elevate Ghost Town and make it stand out in the crowd of numerous other clichéd romantic comedies. That's not saying that this film isn't clichéd, it has them left right and centre. Although with Gervais taking a different approach to the material then what most other leading men would do in this situation, Ghost Town becomes a film that people will actually enjoy and not roll their eyes at.

We start the film off with the death of Greg Kinnear, and if you think that is a spoiler then you have no idea what this movie is about. After that we are treated to the 'people person' that is our lead character. We get this immediately with his treatment to his patients and other co-workers. Although, after his surgery, he opens his eyes and start seeing ghosts around the town. This is when the clichéd bits start kicking in. With every film in which a living character can see and speak with ghosts, you get the obligatory "Is he crazy?" as people around him see him speak to no one. We've seen this stuff over and over again and while it would obviously happen, it's not funny and that's the difference. Ghost Town tries to get a laugh every time it happens.

You know those films when people walk through a ghost and they get the chills, while this film has that, they put a little twist on it. The character sneezes. For whatever reason, it's never explained, but I guess when you're dealing with this subject matter you can start creating your own rules. Speaking of rules, Ghost Town follows the basic flow chart of every rom-com that has been out there before it. So don't really expect to see something new.

This is Gervais first leading film, after having successful television shows with "The Office" and "Extras" he is branching out to film. This is an interesting choice for his first outing, and while it does work, I would have liked to see him do something different. He sure has the comedic chops to tackle different forms of comedy. He has his own spin on things and it's all in the delivery. With comedic actors like Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy failing to get laughs (Love guru, Meet Dave) it's nice to see the light shine on someone else. Someone that is currently not in the Apatow crew either.

As with the talking to no one bits, there is also the "tell me something that only I would know" routine. Although, I will give Koepp props, because this time it doesn't work out so well. I like Koepp as a director, Stir Of Echoes and the Trigger Effects are both well made films. This is his first time writing and directing a comedy. If you want to count Toy Soldiers as a comedy then go ahead, he did write that. He does a decent job of pacing the film with the laughs and adding the emotional punches when it's needed. As most rom-coms do, it takes a dramatic turn and the comedy goes away for about 15 minutes, Maybe you'll need a Kleenex, maybe not.

While Ghost Town does follow the basics for a romantic comedy, it does have the s slight advantage of having Ricky Gervais on it's side. If you've never seen his material, Ghost Town is an alright choice to start with, but I still recommend his television work over this. You'll get some laughs from here, Tea Leoni holds her own and Greg Kinnear has the hardest part in the entire film. So in the end, the film works and does what it's suppose to do.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

SAW V (David Hackl)

http://www.gilmoregirlsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/saw-v-02.jpg

"The Weakest Entry Yet..."

SAW V is about Hoffman trying to conceal the fact that he is Jigsaw's apprentice. People are put in traps...can they escape? Really, do I need to explain the plot of a SAW film to anyone by now? It's been the same movie for years now, only gradually getting worse and worse. SAW V is without a doubt the weakest entry yet to the SAW franchise. It tries too hard to set itself apart from the previous films and yet at the same time try to go back to it's roots. So why do I still see these films, well, it's a tradition. So you can bet I will see SAW VI and you can bet I probably won't like it.

So why does SAW V fail so much? Well, let me crack out the list.

One, it does not feel like a SAW film. SAW V puts the traps on the back end and focuses more on the story. Good right? Wrong. They basically took the same story from SAW III with Amanda and put it with Hoffman. This time we get flashbacks of Hoffman with Jigsaw, all of which I guess are suppose to be twisty but none ever catch you off guard. I don't know if it's weak writing or the fact that we've seen so many twists in this series that we can't spot them anymore. That goes for the ending too. Ever since the original SAW there has been a twist at the end to let the audience leave the theatre talking. This one doesn't have that. I was a bit disappointed. Seeing the twist is half the fun...isn't it?

Two, can we please stick with some characters here? Every film there are new characters introduced, fair enough. But do we always have to kill off the ones from previous films? I had the same problem with SAW III. Can we pick a character and stick with them? How are any of us suppose to connect with anyone when we know you are going to kill them off soon.

Three, the script. It has horrible dialogue scattered throughout the entire thing. Half ass scenes with the detective. We see Hoffmans's flashback and all of a sudden he puts the pieces together. Is he seeing what we are seeing? That can't be, but the film sure plays out like he can. The characters are not likable at all, specifically Hoffman and the 5 lucky people trapped in his game. Who are these people, they came and left quicker then you could say "I Want To Play A Game". Also, can get get some people who aren't completely stupid? You've been on this case for awhile now and you still don't know to actually 'listen' to the tape and follow the instructions. Maybe it's because I've watched all the films, but when I hear the words, "get in this box, it will save your life". I'm going to get in the damn box and not try to do something else that will eventually and obviously lead to my death.

We are given more scenes with no substance, that we have to wait for the next film. The box with Jigsaw's wife. We have no idea what's in there, we could guess, but hey, then what the hell would be the point of the next one right? The traps aren't as creative and seem even more implausible then before. Giant swinging pendulum of death???

I gave the creators of SAW credit for always turning out new films year after year and making it somewhat enjoyable. The sugar on top was how they all connected and how you actually did need to see the first ones to know what was going on. I'm sad to say the quality is slipping here. Sure they all still connect, but do we care about the connections anymore? I'm starting to grow tired of them. People still seem to love these movies, so let's have VI then call it quits before the films become a complete joke. To the fans, the critics have already sung their tunes on this franchise.

2

[Sexy Celebrity]

Saw V definitely has the worst twist in the series -- it's not really a twist at all, though, is it? It was like a last minute twist, mainly only for what happens during the last three minutes!

But as of now, I feel it was more enjoyable of a film than Saw IV, which had a twist that was a very watered down version of the first film's twist. Yet Saw V is just a continuation of Saw IV, and Saw VI will more than likely be just the same.

But this one, which did focus more on the story than the traps, felt more enjoyable than 4 and maybe even 3. It also sort of had a Saw II feel to it, which I think is the best in the series.

Part 5's in horror films are always loathed. Friday the 13th part 5 with the killer who was a Jason copycat, not Jason himself. Halloween 5 had Michael Myers' moves tracked telepathically by his 9 year old niece. Nightmare On Elm Street 5 had Freddy STALKING A WOMAN THROUGH HER UNBORN BABY'S DREAMS!

It's just the stigma of being part 5. It is an unlucky number in the horror movie world.

[Swedish Chef]

The director's name has the word "hack" in it?

That's a professional reviewer's wet dream.

[Sexy Celebrity]

The director's name has the word "hack" in it?

That's a professional reviewer's wet dream.

That and Emmanuelle Goes To College.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Changeling (Clint Eastwood)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/the_changeling/_group_photos/angelina_jolie1.jpg


Could Have Been A Masterpiece

Christine Collins is called in to work on her day off. She leaves her son at home and promises to take him out tomorrow to make it up to him. When she returns, he is missing, nowhere to be found. 5 months later the LAPD claim to have found him, but when they present the boy to Christine, she refuses him, saying he is not her son. Instead of making the department look embarrassed and admit failure, they throw her in a mental institution.

What makes Changeling even more depressing is that this is all based on true events.

Eastwood has yet another winner under his belt with Changeling. Some might find it a hard film to enjoy, but I was engaged throughout, due to the performances, art direction, story and Eastwood's talented directing. It's Eastwood's eye to detail that brings this 1920's era to life. I was really impressed with the design of this film and it felt completely real to me. From the set design to the costume design. Normally you can see through the fabric and know that it was made for the film, but here it simply fits.

A lot of the film rests on the shoulders of Angelina Jolie, as the mother of the lost child. I believed her in this role. Her eyes do most of the acting, subtle and honest. Yet at times her overbearing yelling distracts. At first it's believable, but near the end it seems more of the same and irritating at times. It's a strong enough performances to garner attention from Award ceremonies. On the supporting side is John Malkovich, who kicks all kinds of ass without doing much. His presence is enough to make you cheer. He is in command and you can tell by simply listening to his tone of voice. Colm Feore is someone you can count on to play any man with questionable morals. It's all in his face, perfectly cast here as the Chief of police. I have to say that a weak link in the acting is Jeffrey Donovan. I enjoyed him to a degree, but his voice/accent is just too annoying to get use to. I squirmed in my seat a couple of times, not from his characters actions, but from the accent.

One person to watch for here is Jason Butler Harner, who plays a serial killer. He takes a slightly different approach to the subject matter. He isn't too crazy, he isn't too weird, he's a mix of both. But what makes it a more horrifying performance is that he is human. We are not seeing Hannibal Lector up on the screen, we are seeing a human being. I wouldn't be surprised if a Supporting Acting nod went in his direction. Also, Amy Ryan makes a small appearance, nothing too big, but her scenes are well enough to make a mention of.

The story is strong, and it is strengthened by the fact that it is based on a true story. If it were fabricated, then the emotion might not have been there, at least not as much as what this film delivers. Jolie delivers a performance that is heart wrenching, at times, and it is heightened by that small little fact that someone in this world went through those emotions, those barriers and heartaches.

Yes, this film is depressing. Eastwood knows it, and uses it to his advantage. Throughout the entire film I found myself just wanting to punch some people in the face, to yell at them and help Jolie in her cause to get her son back. Malkovich does this for the audience, which is why I think his character kicks ass. He does what we as the audience want to do. The tension in this film is high, not from thrills, but from the horrible things that these characters do to Jolie. She stands her ground, we cheer, and they throw more rocks at her, we tense up. Great flow for this film.

Although, with all it's greatness, it does have a weakness. It's too freaking long. I thought the film was going to end, then it went on for another 20 minutes. I think with a bit more editing and tightening up, you can easily shave off those 20 minutes. Even though I was entertained and engaged in the last little bit of the film, mostly the trial and the bits in between the trial, I couldn't help but think that the film should wrap up soon. Real soon.

Much like Eastwood's Oscar baby, Mystic River, Changeling deals with a missing child. Only this time it's the feminine aspect and the time period is drastically different. The film is strong enough to stand as one of his better works and if it were a bit tighter and shorter...I might have been able to call it a masterpiece.

Too bad.

4

[mark f]

I hope this film is good. I tend to like Eastwood as a director, but Mystic River was blatantly overrated in my book. Not only was it slow and predictable, my wife told me who the murderers were the moment they showed up. Plus, I just found every single Oscar-nomed/winning performance WAY over the top. Between the predictability, the boredom and the "questionable" acting, the whole thing seemed too self-important to even care about. Oh yeah, I watched the film the opening weekend, so my opinions about the Oscars actually aren't that big a deal since they're more of an afterthought. Gone Baby Gone seemed to me to be a much stronger film in every regard.

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review :yup:

[rice1245]

I hope this film is good. I tend to like Eastwood as a director, but Mystic River was blatantly overrated in my book. Not only was it slow and predictable, my wife told me who the murderers were the moment they showed up. Plus, I just found every single Oscar-nomed/winning performance WAY over the top. Between the predictability, the boredom and the "questionable" acting, the whole thing seemed too self-important to even care about. Oh yeah, I watched the film the opening weekend, so my opinions about the Oscars actually aren't that big a deal since they're more of an afterthought. Gone Baby Gone seemed to me to be a much stronger film in every regard.


i just watched Mystic River last week and i thought it was a bit overrated too, maybe not to your extent though i'd have to watch it again

[igor_is_fugly]

Ugh, I was hoping this would for once be a Clint Eastwood film that wouldn't spiral me into an inconsolable depression. I guess that's just too much to hope for though huh.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I hope this film is good. I tend to like Eastwood as a director, but Mystic River was blatantly overrated in my book. Not only was it slow and predictable, my wife told me who the murderers were the moment they showed up.

Mystic River was terrible, i agree.

i've been wanting to see this one too, though--not much of a fan of Jolie but this still looks interesting enough. thanks for the review Suspect!

[Sir Toose]

Just wanted to pop in and say that I love your reviews, Suspect. Great stuff.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Quantum Of Solace (Marc Forster)

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/quantum_of_solace/_group_photos/daniel_craig5.jpg


"Old Bond Meets New Bond"

This is the first immediate sequel to any Bond film, so it plays out differently. Here we start just after Casino Royale finishes. Bond questions Mr. White and discovers a secret organization known as Quantum, who have people everywhere. Bond must now go after Dominic Greene, another pawn in Quantum's schemes and this time Bond is fueled by revenge.

With every other Bond film, they were able to stand alone since they did not need to rely on the previous installments for someone to know what is going on. This time is different. QoS is the first direct sequel to any Bond film and this does both good and bad for the end results.

As I said before Craig is an excellent Bond, one of my favourites. He adds a new layer to a character who was getting boring with the same old same old. This time we see a more dangerous Bond, some might complain that he is starting to resemble Bourne more then Bond, but I don't really mind it too much. Casino Royale showed us where they wanted to take the series and QoS continues down that road, only it stumbles a bit.

For one, the action sequences. They are all good and fun, but poorly thrown together. I got a sense of this from the trailers and my thoughts were confirmed with seeing the opening sequence and rooftop chase. I would of liked a better set-up here, throwing us directly into the action is a mis-step. But, at the same time the action sequences screamed classic Bond, which is what was missing from Royale. Here we have the car chases, plane chases and boat chases. Everything seemed like they were updating the older films and it was neat. If they were better edited and directed then I would have enjoyed them more, instead I found myself desperately trying to follow what was going on.

The villain wasn't anything special. Mathieu Amalric does a good job with what he is given, but the character is boring, not evil enough and not once did I think this guy was dangerous. I find him to be like a little boy with too much power. Mr. White would have been a better villain, but it seems they are saving that for another time. Olga Kurylenko is beautiful and she looks like she can handle herself, but I wasn't too impressed here. I enjoyed Eva Green a lot more and wanted her back here. Not saying Kurylenko does a bad job, she just isn't that interesting to me.

Most of these problems aren't we the actors, but the script. It is muddled with problems in the plot and sometimes is hard to follow. There were a few unnecessary parts and characters, Mathis and Felix Leiter randomly show up and don't do anything of interest. I was disappointed and it seems the series may need a new writer or two to bring fresh and more importantly clear ideas for the next installment.

In the end this is a decent flick, it serves as a bridge to what I hope and think will be a better film down the road. It's basically the second half of Casino Royale as well. If you enjoyed Royale, you will like this one, but you won't be enthusiastic about it. I sure wasn't.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Yes Man (Peyton Reed)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/yes-man-picture.jpg

"It Just Doesn't Get Creative Enough"


Carl is a loner who never wants to do anything with anyone. This includes his best friend who is about to get married. After missing a few important dates in his friends life and having a bizarre dream about being dead and nobody caring, he decides to attend a YES MAN seminar. He is challenged to say YES to EVERYTHING, or else bad things will happen to him.

This kind of sound like Liar Liar and that is the film most people will be comparing it to, even though both of them are almost completely different. The only similarity is that the main character HAS to do something. One is to tell the truth, the other is to say yes. Well, the similarities stop there. I want to say that this film is funny, and I will, but it wasn't funny enough. I got a few chuckles here and there but not one scene stands out in my mind as the funniest or the most memorable. Which is a bad thing for a comedy.

Jim Carrey does his usual and brings the funny faces and physical comedy. At some points it seems unnecessary and forced, like when he is having a weird face making competition with his boss. At other times, it just simply works cause it's Jim Carrey and he's being doing it for years. As Carl, who is played by Carrey, soon finds out that saying yes leads to good things in his life, he embraces the idea. Unfortunately that idea is never fully realized and we never really see where this could take us. It felt like they were playing it safe this time, which is really odd considering the amount of adult material in here.

There are a few swear words, I remember hearing the F-BOMB a few times, which surprised me. Also there is a scene in which my girlfriend found completely gross and it involves an elderly lady taking out her teeth to 'perform' on Carl. The scene is used to show that when he says NO, bad things happen to him, but at the same time it seems completely like it should belong in another film.

Everything you see in the trailer is pretty much what he says yes to. The Korean, the guitar lessons, the plane lessons. There are only a few that you don't know about but they aren't that funny. Driving a homeless man home is one of them and it never got a laugh from me.

The supporting cast helps the film immensely. Zooey Deschanel is wonderful as always. I find her always to be charming and cute with a funny side. Carl's boss and new friend due to him having to say yes to everything is Rhys Darby. People may recognize him from the TV show Flight of the Conchords as the band manager. He steals the show in every scene and is far more funny then Jim Carrey. It's a shame because I always liked Jim Carrey. It seems that the older comedians are losing it while the newer ones seem fresh and hot. Terence Stamp has three scenes in the film, two of which are at the seminars. He doesn't really add too much to the film and the role could have been played by anyone.

The film is indeed a romantic comedy, so I warn you. Be prepared for every romantic comedy cliché. This one has them. Boy meets girl, loses girl and races against time to win her back. What makes it not really work is that I can't see Deschanel really hooking up with Carrey. It must be the age gap. Even though these two work well together, I just can't see them romantically involved. Maybe best friends would work better.

I wanted more from Yes Man, it could have really done some funny things with it's premise but it plays it safe. I do find the film to be one of Carrey's better ones of late. Fun with Dick & Jane was horrible and let's not even mention The Number 23. Yes Man is a film you want to be able to laugh constantly at, but will only find yourself laughing every now and again. I recommend Yes Man as a rental and nothing to rush to see.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy :) I went to see Bond at the movies and fell asleep in parts of it :blush:

[TheUsualSuspect]

During a Bond film, wow. Now that says something about the film.

[nebbit]

All the action seemed the same old same old :yup: and I was very tired :sleep:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/large_grantorino1.jpg

"I Wish I Could Look Bad-Ass Pointing My Finger Like A Gun"

Walt is a retired war veteran who's racist remarks he speaks aloud in every sentence, no matter who he is talking to. After he discovers his new neighbour trying to steal his vintage 1972 Gran Torino, the boy becomes in debt to Walt. Walt ends up getting him to do chorus around the neighbourhood to make up for it. They become closer and Walt's racism towards the family disappears. But the street gang that is causing problems for the kid is up to no good and Walt takes matters into his own hands.

For some reason, I have seen Eastwood's last 5 films in theatres. This surprises me because I've never been a big fan of him, having never seen the Dirty Harry films, or The Man With No Name trilogy. In fact, Mystic River was the first film I've seen that had Eastwood's name stamped on it. Sad I know, but true. Now with Gran Torino being labelled his last acting gig, I feel like I've missed out. I've been told by people that this flick is basically if Ditry Harry retired and I've seen enough of that character in pop culture to say that I cannot argue with this point.

Gran Torino is the second Eastwood film to come out in 2008, it played in limited theatres here then eventually got a wider release in 2009. I can't tell you which one is better, they are both too different to make an honest decision, but many will enjoy Gran Torino better. For one thing, the final act does not drag itself on too long and it has Eastwood being a bad ass mofo.

The young kid, in his first acting role, is pretty bad in my opinion. I've had an argument over this with my friend, he thinks he did a good job. I know it;s his first acting role, but every line he delivers is too forced and it seems like he's trying to remember every single line. It gets annoying after awhile and one particular scene that is suppose to be dramatic comes off a bit too comedic. The older sister though does a good job, this is also her first acting gig. The young priest I'm still on the fence about, he did a decent job, but something about him and his performance just rubbed me the wrong way. I never truly believed him.

If this is Eastwood's final film he's acting in, then he goes out on a high note. He plays Walt extremely well as a war vet who seems to hate everyone except his dog. He even throws out his own kid of his house on his birthday. He eventually finds out that he has more in common with his Asian neighbours then his own family. Sure the plot line involving him becoming friends with these people is cliched, but Eastwood pulls it off and the transition from bigot to friend between him and the family is real.

The film has a few comedic parts, a favourite of mine is when Eastwood is trying to teach the kid to act like more of a man, so he brings him into a barber shop and tells him to listen to how he talks to the barber. What follows is hilarious and racist. Walt spits racist slurs every chance he gets, both when being mean and friendly.

The final act has an emotional punch that felt like a bit of a jab, instead of the knockout it intended to be. I wanted to be able to have more of an emotional connection to the film, but it just was not there. I don't know how else they could have ended it though, without it becoming cheap and 'hollywood'. The film ends with Eastwood singing the title song, I'm sorry but I giggled at this part. The ending was suppose to be something emotional and Eastwood's singing chops had me almost laughing. This unintentional humour took away from that emotion.

So, while both Changeling and Gran Torino are good flicks, people will like this one more. It's not as melodramatic or disturbing, it fits the mold. All of his films seem to be depressing and I for one would like to see him break that streak. I can't come to give it a better rating though, because it isn't above and beyond.

4

[mark f]

I agree with you, but I'm like your friend. I didn't have any problem with the kid's acting... at all. I teach lots of kids like him on a daily basis and he was real as far as I'm concerned, especially considering that he isn't totally happy in his situation at times. I also don't think the film was going for a "knockout" punch at the end. I hope you stayed to listen to the rest of the song and watch those visuals after the Gran Torino goes touring and Clint's golden pipes end and two other singers take over the singing. That part made me really "get" the film. I mean, I think it's got a tight script so it's not like you can mess it up, but those haunting lyrics while I'm watching the path the Gran Torino will be taking, hopefully for a long time, gets to me. Hey, Eastwood is 50% older than I am, but I'm obviously an Old Fart, or at least one who can appreciate old-fashioned filmmaking skill and storytelling.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I did in fact watch the credits, I always do. I think the people at the theatre hate me because I always stay and they just stand there waiting for me to leave.

I didn't not like the kid though, he is tolerable I'd say. But a lot of his dialogue and the way he delivered it was bothersome to me.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Wrestler (Darren Aronofsky)


http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/the-wrestler.jpg

"You Will Cheer For The Wrestler"

An aging and broken down wrestler tries to live a normal life outside the ring, but when things get even worse in his life, he turns to the one thing that kept him going and made him feel loved, wrestling.

Mickey Rourke's performance as Randy "The Ram" Robinson is honest, heart-breaking and real. Probably the most real performances I've seen this year and one of my personal favourites. True, the story of this character mirrors the life of the actor himself and it's obvious that he brought that with him, but it's hard to watch this film and not cheer for him, feel sorry for him and want everything to work out in the end for him.

This is the 4th film from Darren Aronofsky and it goes back to his more independent roots, like his first feature Pi. Not saying his other two features who big Hollywood productions, but anyway. The Wrestler is shot in a gritty, low budget documentary style that suits the film to a tee. This isn't high production value WWE wrestler. This is the independent, small ring, small crowds, real pain wrestling and the way they shot it reflects just that. This character study wouldn't have had the same impact if it looked clean and pristine. It would have felt fake.

The two, often misjudged, professions in this film are wrestling and stripping. People often throw wrestling aside claiming it to be fake. The film makes to effort to take one side or the other, it just tells it like it is. Yes, these guys know how it is going to go down and who is going to win, they have the moves mapped out before the match begins, but it's really their bodies being thrown to the floor, it's really their heads being smashed with a chair. As we see in the movie, the blood is sometimes self-inflicted, for the show and entertainment. Yet, it is still their blood that is being drawn.

The second is stripping, which is where Marisa Tomei enters the film. The one character who Randy is able to have a relationship with, even if it is a short lived lap dance and he has to pay for it. Here is a guy that can't pay to keep his trailer open for him, but is willing to spend 60 bucks on a lap dance. Is it because he is horny, or he is in need for some kind of human contact, somebody to talk to. Well, it turns out he actually likes the broad, but guess what, she doesn't date customers. Ouch, another hit in the face for Randy in the real world.

After Randy has a heart attack he is told he can't wrestle and Cassidy/Pam (stage name and real name) tells him to go see his daughter. The only problem is they haven't spoken in years. He hasn't been a father to her, he doesn't know what music she likes, what type of person she is, or even her birth date. He tries his best to re-connect with her and pours his heart out. I wanted this relationship to work more then the one with the stripper, this one felt more real. I can't say too much about Evan Rachel Wood, she plays the clichéd teen angst daughter. We've seen her do this before with the film Thirteen.

As good as Rourke is in the film, there was not one scene that particularly jumped out at me as amazing. I was waiting for a scene in which he would knock me out of my seat, yet that never happened. It could be because he's really good throughout the entire thing and that the entire film is his one scene that will knock you out. The film is not to be outdone by Rourke's performance either. I was never bored, and always connected.

The soundtrack ain't to shabby either.

4

[Yoda]

Nice review. :) Hoping to catch them both (Gran Torino and The Wrestler) sometime in the next few weeks.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle)

http://www.exclaim.ca/images/up-Slumdog_Millionaire.jpg


"Silly Mistakes Took Me Out Of The Experience"

Slumdog Millionaire is a love story, about the troubles one young man goes through in order to be with the woman he loves. Jamal is a contestant on the game show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and is interrogated after answering all the correct answers, he explains how he knew those answers and we are taken on a ride through his life and through India.

This film is marvelous to watch, from the opening shots of India and the hyper kinetic chase through the slums, I was immediately captured by the beauty this film offers its viewer. Both beautiful and depressing, violent and peaceful, dangerous and safe. Slumdog rises to be one of the better films of 2008 and was so close to being a top contender, but faults with the film are technical and it immediately took me out of that zone of beauty and made me realize I was watching a movie.

I'll get to that later, but first, let me tell you how good the film is. It's really good. The vibrant colours hit you and never leave, you actually feel like you are in another world. The sound design is immense and astounding, great attention to detail that is backed with a joyful soundtrack.

The cast is wonderful, Freida Pinto is beautiful beyond words, playing the love interests of the main character in the present time. Each character (Jamal, his brother Salim and Litika) are portrayed at different stages in their lives, by different actors. I enjoyed the really young child actors the most, their innocence and voice worked so well. Dev Petal plays Jamal on the show and despite being new to the acting craft, feels comfortable in the role. One would not know that the kid is actually British.

The film is an all around feel good flick, you will cheer for the kids and their adventures. I will admit, when I first heard about it and saw a trailer I was not really interested, the India background turned me off. I didn't think it was going to be an endearing and thought provoking film. First mistake ladies and gentlemen is going into a flick with preconceived notions. Of course after hearing all the praise I decided to give it a go. I'm glad I did.

Now on to my own little personal rant as I said earlier. I was taken out of the movie experiences a couple times and it ultimately ruined bits for me. One would be after the show is turned on the television and Jamal is being questioned we see a boom mic over his head. Bobbing away up in the air, the second is when we see Latika for the first time after she was captured. The continuity with her piercings in her nose were totally off. Normally the continuity thing wouldn't bother me if it weren't so apparent, but the boom mic really did take me out of it. Or what about the fact that these kids speak English when they are older. Where the hell did they learn that?

That said, the film does have some minor flaws, it's not perfect in anyway. I wanted a bit more from Latika, she was under used. The millionaire questions were incredibly easy, I could be a millionaire right now. you'll enjoy the flashbacks more then the present, but I'm assuming you're suppose to. All in all, Slumdog is a good film.

4

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review :yup: I saw this last week and loved it also :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Watchmen (Zack Snyder)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/475_watchmen_090304.jpg

"Is It Worth The Wait?"

It's always hard to review films that are based on previous works, such as books, or in this case a graphic novel. The problem is that people want to always bring the most popular books to life on the big screen and it ultimately disappoints a lot of people because it's from a different vision then their own. This is why movies based on books not a lot of people have read are always good and ones that are based on big popular ones are mostly bad. Of course there are the few exceptions.

I think it goes without saying that the film would never be as good as the book. It's a statement that is so obvious that I'm surprised I'm even stating it here. In reviewing a film based of said literature, one should make the distinction of not really comparing the two. It's simply not fair. Comparisons will rise, no doubt, but the two mediums are vastly different. With books, you can go anywhere, do anything, nothing is limited. Film on the other hand, has so many limitations that it feels like it should be viewed in a category on it's own. You can only do so much with an actual camera, but with your imagination the limitations are endless. This is why I'll be reviewing the film and try not to compare it to the Graphic Novel.

So, where to begin? It's taken decades for this unfilmable epic to make it to the big screen, so a pat on the back to Synder and the crew for finally making it happen. He has done with other directors couldn't. Granted, we now have the technology to bring these things to life, something we did not have way back then. Even so, Snyder has proven himself to be a competent director, his last two films have been both financially and critically successful. Did he do a good job bringing Watchmen to the screen. I guess as good as it could of possibly been.

The film is a pretty accurate depiction of the novel, the changes that were made I had no opposition to. Things were obviously left out, some things I knew would be gone, some things I hoped would make it in. The film clocks in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, so it may seem like it will drag in places and near the end it does. Whenever Dr. Manhattan was on the screen, I was so happy. He was a marvel in the book and here as well. Every time he was on the screen I was glued to it, could not look away. Although, when on Mars when he is discussing he feelings with humanity, I found myself slightly bored. Which is a shame because it is a pivotal moment in the film. Billy Crudup plays a character devoid of any emotion. He pulls it off. I enjoyed his performance. During the trailer I was upset with his voice, but during the film I did not mind it. I loved his eyes and every little turn of his head.

Malin Akerman on the other hand has gotten a lot of flack for her performance and I say it was because the character isn't even likable. I found her annoying and whiny, here she just seems boring. No connection to Manhattan, but more importantly Dan. I just did not really buy their relationship on screen. She does look beautiful in (and out) of that suit though and can kick some ass. Speaking of Dan, Night Owl is two characters. A kickass superhero and an overweight man who needs his glasses to see. Wilson captured both pretty well. His nervousness is there and I thought he brought that character to life. The one casting spot the fans seemed to hate the most, I enjoyed quite a bit. Matthew Goode did a decent job here, much to my surprise, even though I expected him to not be as bad as people were saying.

Both Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan play the psychopaths in this flick. Morgan shows his stuff in the characters flashbacks, aging from a young arrogant bastard, to an old crying slob. After his introduction and flashback scenes he has nothing else to do with the film and I wanted to see more of his sorry ass. Haley was the highlight of the film for me. What a badass character he gets to play, with the mask on and off. He pulled it off extremely well.

Why oh why did the make-up department fail so badly though? Looking at Silk Spectre in her old age was horrible. She looks like she had play dough rubbed on her face, Nixon too. Even The Comedian to an extent, whose fight sequence went on a tad too long. Punching through walls, really?

The soundtrack was spot on, maybe too spot on for some, but I dug it. The film's highlight, other than Dr. Manhattan's origins telling, is the fantastic montage opening credits to the tune of Bob Dylan. I loved it. Couldn't get enough of it. It immediately sets you in this alternate universe and you know the history. Pick up the soundtrack, I know I will.

The film looks beautiful, no question . Sin City had it's own atmosphere, as did 300 and now Watchmen. I just didn't sit there and see this world they were living in, I felt a part of it. I loved the blue of Manhattan glowing everywhere, I loved the neon signs and the gritty streets.

Some parts did have the Zack Snyder stamp all over them, most notably the prison scene in which Night Owl and Spectre II fight off some prisoners down the corridor. Just seemed like 300 all over again to me. I did enjoy Rorschach kicking ass though. His pacing was a bit off as well, in the Graphic Novel I felt that they left out Adiran a lot, which is exactly what the film does as well, much to my dismay. His choice to have the characters seem more super than human was also a bit weird. This was most noticeable in the climax when characters are bouncing off solid objects and nothing really seems to happen to them.

A lot of the core themes and elements were sort of lost to me in the translation. Viewers will get lost in the gorgeousness of it and might miss the smaller parts that really make Watchmen what it is. These characters are not super at all, they all have problems. I feel that many people will miss this, the film kind of did. For instance, my friend who knew nothing about the graphic novel (he gave the film a 6/10) asked me why the black kid and the old fat guy were hugging at the end before the explosion. Seeing them was nothing more then a wink and a nod to the people who read the novel, no one else knew who the hell they were. Give me more little things with the main characters. Rorschach is suppose to be the psychopath, yet he seems to be the only one with a level head on his shoulders most of the time.

In the end, the film is a good adaptation of the book. I enjoyed it on it's own merits and on the comparison to the source material. So I guess they did something right with that one. I guess my small complaints are ones that fans seem to have, more needed with the core characters. I really wanted more on Kovacs back story. I wanted to see him make the mask dammit. At times it tries to be brilliant, like the novel, but it doesn't come off like that. I wanted the entire film to be brilliant, but ended up with an entertaining movie that I would love to watch over again and again.

Touche.

4

[rice1245]

The one casting spot the fans seemed to hate the most, I enjoyed quite a bit. Matthew Goode did a decent job here, much to my surprise, even though

I agree he was so overly confident that i bought it because that's what i would have expected of Adrian.

I would love to watch over again and again.

i saw it for a second time and liked it twice as much. It could have been because i saw it in Imax this time and the theater was actually packed and people laughed when they were supposed to, the first time i saw it i was with a group of unappreciative teenage boys and barely anybody in the theater and a group of people walked off shouting "this movie's gay!" so that may have contributed to why the second viewing was so much better but i actually want to see it for a third time too and haven't gotten sick of it which is a really good sign

[TheUsualSuspect]

I saw it in Imax (which is Canadian YAY!) and the two guys beside me almost ruined my whole experience.

[rice1245]

Yup i didn't realize just how much my experience was ruined by the people i went with until i saw it again without them but i'm guessing you're talking about obnoxious people in theaters and not necessarily your friends...even though they weren't my friends i barely knew them but yeah, there's a really long ranting from about 4:00am when i got home in the Watchmen thread (upcoming movies section) about how much i hated teenage boys because they couldn't get over the blue penis

[Iroquois]

I saw it in Imax and the two guys beside me almost ruined my whole experience.

Replace "two guys beside me" with "two five-year-old kids behind me" and you've summed up what was wrong with my IMAX viewing.

[Lennon]

they couldn't get over the blue penis

Wait there's a BLUE penis? Tee hee hee.

[TheUsualSuspect]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Gavin Hood)

http://larcho.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/xmen_origins_wolverine_still2.jpg

"Much Better Than I Thought It Was Going To Be"

This is the origins story of the mutant known as Wolverine and how he was attached to the weapon x project.

When I first heard they were going to make this flick, I thought that the series was going to go into a nosedive. The third film in the X-men franchise lacked everything that made the first two films enjoyable. Now a spin-off? I wasn't having it and the fact that they seemed to ruin one of my favourite x-men characters in the trailers didn't seem to help either. Well, I can say this, the film is not that bad. It's actually decent and a step up from the horrid Last Stand. Although they do miss a few steps that really hurt the film as a whole.

First off Hugh Jackman was born to play this character, here he is given more room to dive deeper into the animal and he does a great job. Mixing both comedic and dramatic elements, there is nothing new here to the character, just more of the same. More of the same though is fun and kick ass. Liev Schreiber plays Victor Creed, aka Sabretooth. His look is different from the first time we see him and he actually has some speaking lines here. Excellent casting choice, Liev really lets go here and you can see the fun he is having with the character.

Now, onto the two things that are ruined, from a "fan" perspective. Deadpool and Gambit. Many fans knew going in that these two guys were both kick ass and that the film was not going to do them justice. Well, it's true. These two guys lacked the screen time and the badass personas that people have come to love. Ryan Reynold has 5 minutes of screen time, he does he usual jokey bits like in Blade Trinity, but here it fits for the character. We see one scene in which he uses his blades to deflect bullets, quite cool. Then he is gone for the rest of the film. Gambit shows up 3/4 of the way through and the guy playing him looks too pretty boyish to be Gambit. Like he came right off of One Tree Hill or something. His scenes lacked a lot of punch too and it seems that his character was only used to draw in fans. The character in the film could have been anybody else and it wouldn't effect the story, but they chose Gambit cause fans wanted to see him. You will be disappointed.

The final fight sequences is nice, I don't want to go into details cause that would give away certain plot points, specifically who the final fight scene is with and why he is fighting him. I have to raise another complaint though, as for the explanation for Wolverine's so called memory loss. They don't explain it very well in the film, they just say that this will make him not remember. Why? I don't know. Fighting fire with fire just doesn't make sense to me.

There are cameos from a lot of mutants, cyclops as a kid is one and another one at the end that fans will enjoy. I thought that they could have trimmed the running time down a bit, currently 1:46. Lose Charlie from Lost, cause his little scenes don't do too much for the film except egg on that run time. Also the subplot with his love interest, just doesn't work.

The action sequences are nice and enjoyable, sometimes they looked a bit hokey, but the version I saw was still in production. the opening credit sequences is neat and mirrors what Watchmen did. I think the fans will enjoy this one, if they can get pass the nitpicking of certain characters. It's leaps and bounds over the last film, but doesn't hold a candle to the second one. It's interesting to see if they are going to try and fit another one in between the events of this film and the first X-men, cause if we go by continuity sake here, somethings just don't fit.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Star Trek (J.J. Abrams)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Star-Trek-Trailer-Image-28.jpg


"Holy Lens Flare Captain"

With the recent surge in reboots of franchises and remakes, J.J. Abrams goes into a little different direction, and uses time travel as a device to play in both worlds, that being the original series and the new reboot he has created. The result is a highly entertaining film with great special effects and good performances.

Going through a black hole and destroying a federation ship, Nero has altered the current time line and created an alternate universe. He's exacting revenge on other planets because his was destroyed. Can the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise stop him in time? I never watched the original series with Shatner, and caught a few episodes of The Next Generation because my dad would watch them. The series seemed to be running out of gas in films, with every single film being about throwing the ships shield's up and pretending to be hit by missiles in space. I welcome this so called 're-boot' with open arms, the series needed it in my opinion. Abrams and co have created something special here and I'm interested in seeing where they take this series.

The casting choices work for me, I knew enough of the original characters to know this. For me, Urban as McCoy is the best casting decision. Quinto from Heroes fame fills the shoes of Spock, he looks the part and plays the part well. The guy looks evil every time you look at him. Pegg as Scotty is a given and newcomer Pine does the role justice and I'm glad he didn't try to impersonate Shatner here. Everyone works in their supporting roles and we are introduced to them by the numbers. I was a tad upset to only see Pegg introduced near the end of the film, but here's hoping we see more of him in future installments.

The special effects were stunning. I noticed they employed the same technique used in the short lived brilliant television show Firefly, which employed quick zooms and having objects and people out of focus for a brief second while in space. Although, I'm sure during the scenes in space, it would be silenced, such as the girl flying out of the ship in the opening and Kirk & Sulu descending on the drill. Yet in other scenes we would hear the explosions of the missiles and so on. Inconsistent, but not a huge problem.

The way the film is shot is beautiful, but I could do with a little less of the lens flare. I understand that it was intentional, but near the end of the film is became a little overbearing and distracting. Also Bana is underused in my opinion. I could have used a bit more with him and Kirk in the climax.

The film starts off with a bang and the adrenaline is there at the end as well. The film slows down in some parts, but this is needed to fill in the spots of the story. A story that is well written and with Abrams behind the camera, well directed. Abrams has finally made the jump from television to film. His first try was the mediocre Mission Impossible III. With Star Trek it seems this guy has no fear, taking on two films that belong in a franchise, kudos.

Trek is entertaining, funny and will draw in a new audience. I had a great time in the theatre and liked every minute of it. I can't wait to see the direction they take this new and exciting series. Thanks for not disappointing.

4

[nebbit]

Star Trek (J.J. Abrams)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Star-Trek-Trailer-Image-28.jpg


"Holy Lens Flare Captain"
Yeah what was that :confused: Nice review :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Terminator Salvation (McG)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/terminator_salvation_bale_worthingt.jpg

"Sequel...Prequel....Reboot....Whatever"

The problem with this film is the same problem that the recent Wolverine film had, it just doesn't connect with the original material. Now, there could be many reasons for this, non of which the film acknowledges. In fact, the film doesn't seem to care about a lot of stuff other then blowing things up and making it look cool. This entry into the series is vastly different from the previous ones. This time around the story takes place in 'present time' I would say, since every film before that was about traveling back in time to save/kill whomever. So right off the bat the film feels like it doesn't belong.

Terminator Salvation is better then Rise of the Machines and weaker then the first two. There, I just told you something you probably already knew. Christian Bale is the 4th actor to portray John Conner (that's right 4th, look it up) and his performance consists of a lot of yelling and shooting. He doesn't have any scenes of emotional depth and the character loses that connectivity with the earlier films. He's a different John Connor, he's not the punk kid or the hiding from everything bum, he's finally becoming what his mother said he would be. Although, he is not the leader of the resistance yet, so this film is NOT the battles we've been preluded to in the original films, it's what happens before it. This film takes place in 2018, everything we've seen or been told came from 2029.

The rest of the cast, with the exception of the saving grace that is Sam Worthington, is pretty much useless. Common fades into the background and serves no purpose whatsoever, he could have been just another faceless soldier. Moon Bloodgood seems to have gotten all her scenes left on the cutting room floor. She has a romance with Worthington that comes out of nowhere because prior scenes were obviously deleted. This makes her actions seem unrealistic. Bryce Dallas Howard takes over the Claire Danes role and surprise surprise is giving nothing to do as well. Anton Yelchin surprised me as Kyle Reese, and seemed like a believable 'young' Biehn. The man who steals the show is Sam Worthington, who is actually given some emotions to play with. I found myself interested in his character and his scenes the most in this film.

McG has an eye for visuals, yet all his films lack substance. This is no different. Although I will say this is his best film, but when looking at his resume, that doesn't amount to much. Whatever substance this film has, it was given to by previous films. The script is basic go to point A to get plot point B. The only worthy addition to this story is the role of Marcus (Worthington) who actually brings a new dimension to this story, which in my opinion, we already know how it will turn out. I'm not totally sure on how this film stands on the whole timeline issue, but in my opinion, none of the key characters were ever at risk to me. Kyle Reese we know will go back in time, so he must live to do so. We know John Conner lives till 2029 to send Reese back in time, so we have no sense of danger in their scenes. Of course it could all be different and they could indeed die, I'm saying this based on the one line of him saying 'This is not the future my mother warned me about".

It will satisfy the action junkies, but leave those who want to see a continuance of the story empty. The barren wastelands are nice to see and gives them free roam for many neat things, such as car chases, motorcycle chases, air jet chases, etc. It had a bit more Mad Max then Terminator feel. You'll see a surprise cameo, which means only one thing when someone says that about this franchise, but when you see it you might laugh. We haven't perfected this yet and it looks fake and cheesy.

Terminator Salvation is a popcorn flick that takes the series in a new direction. No more time traveling to save people, now it's the fight to stay alive. This new direction might not sit well with some, but for those just looking to enjoy themselves for a solid action film, this delivers. The scenes are exciting and Worthington delivers what others should have. The ending is a bit ridiculous, but it's better then the rumoured ending with the skin swapping. On a final note, Connor mentions that he's never seen anything like Marcus before, a machine covered in human skin with organs. Yet, he HAS seen this before, maybe not the organs, but he acts like this is brand new to him. Just one plot hole in my mind, in a field of many.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy, I may still go and see it :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Up (Pete Docter & Bob Peterson)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/up-pixar.jpg

Is Anyone Really Surprised That This Film Is Good?

After living in his home for most of his life, Carl is suddenly surrounded by skyscrapers and construction. They want to buy his house so they can tear it down and build a retirement home. He will have none of this and decides to use thousands of balloons to literally lift his house 'up' and soar to a place he's been dreaming of going since a kid.

There's a bit more to the plot, but I don't want to divulge that information. Going into the film not knowing about it might have a stronger impact on you. Up, which is yet another fascinating film from the geniuses at Pixar is vibrant with colour, full of laughs, tugs on the heart strings and is an adventure for both kids and adults. I never thought a film that had to really old characters in the lead roles would appeal to the young ones, but Up surprised me. In fact, it really surprised me, hearing about the concept I thought that Pixar finally had a dud on their hands. Nope, not this time.

Up is one of my favourite Pixar films, up their with last years Wall-E and The Incredibles. The film is unique and inspiring. I doubt you'll find such quality film making from any other animated film, Pixar has set the bar time and time again. Up, while not visually stunning or powerful as last years Wall-E takes a different route and uses vibrant colours to draw attention to itself. The characters are cartoonish and the story itself could never be based on any reality and for a film about an old guy in a house with balloons, it's mighty adventurous.

Every Pixar film has a message that their cleverly slip into the excitement and Up is no different. We go on this journey with Carl and the young boy scout Russell, Carl at first does not like Russell, nor does he want him around. These two characters are at opposite ends of each other, one old and quite, the other young and talkative. Of course by the end of the flick they bond. Also along for the ride are two side characters, Kevin the colourful native bird of Paradise Falls (they place Carl wants to finally see) and Dug, a dog who can mysteriously talk. Dug is not the only dog who can talk though, the place is full of them, all trained to open doors and fly planes. They all heel to their master Charles Muntz, who has spent his life trying to capture Kevin.

Up is not only funny, fun and exciting, it packs a few emotional scenes too. Some people might want to bring some tissues, while it's not a sob story it is one of the few Pixar films that have moved me. What happens to Carl happens to everyone, so you can relate to him. You are immediately grabbed by him and his story and the film has more emotional punch in ten minutes of dialogue free montage then most dramas or romance films today can say for themselves.

There are a lot of words to describe Up: Delightful, endearing and whimsical are a few, but one I will choose to employ is heart. Along with Wall-E, Up has the most heart out of every other Pixar film I've seen. The film has a PG rating though, only other Pixar film to have this is The Incredibles. The Russell kid is shot at and people die, at times I was thinking would kids be scared of this? I don't think so, nothing horrible ever happens that could traumatize a young one in my opinion.

I did not bother to see this film in 3-D, I've heard it doesn't give enough 'pop' to warrant the additional money on the ticket. Seeing it at a regular theatre will not hinder your viewing at all. All the voice acting is top-notch and perfect casting with Plummer and Asner. See Up in theatres while you can, it is one of the year's best.

4.5

[nebbit]

I saw the trailer of this at the movies and it looked really cute :yup: thanks :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Hangover (Todd Phillips)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/the-hangover-header.jpg

Funniest Film Of the Year

After a wild bachelor party, 3 friends wake up in a destroyed room and discover that their friend, the groom, is missing. Now they must re-trace their steps from the night that they can't remember in order to get him back to the wedding the next day.

This premise is just an excuse for some wild and random comedic scenarios, such as having a tiger be in your bathroom when you wake up. The joy of watching this film is seeing just how many crazy things come next, all of which the characters have no memory of. What makes The Hangover work so well, is not just those random comedic scenarios, but the cast that blended so well together. Specifically Zach Galifianakis, whom has been the audience favourite.

As the film progresses, the characters find themselves getting into some serious situations due to their antics the night before. I want say what happens, as each one is funny, but should be watched with surprise. It easy to say that this film will not bore you. It does have a particular comedic style though and you can judge yourself if you'll be into it or not from the trailer.

Todd Phillips, of Oldschool fame, has his funniest movie here. Both Road Trip and Oldschool were good, yet were missing something that made me really love it. The Hangover has this something. It's not a teen comedy (road trip) nor is it a star powered film (old school). It uses familiar faces that make you go "I've seen him before" but never do these actors overshadow the film. Had it of been a bigger name cast it wouldn't have worked so well.

The three friends are played by Ed Helms, the uptight dentist, Bradley Cooper, the suave smooth talker, and Zach Galifianakis, the odd brother in law. The groom is played by Justin Bartha, the National Treasure sidekick. It's easy to say the Galifianakis steals the show. It's obvious he will garner more roles from this, I just hope he doesn't get pigeon-holed into this style. He reminds me of Chi McBride and I want him to branch out before it's too late (Michael Cera). Helms and Cooper also hold up nicely, I'm familiar with Helms from The Office and Daily Show fame and Cooper from previous films has always been likable. Bartha isn't in the film that much, since most of it is them looking for the guy.

The Hangover also doesn't suffer from the one thing that seems to kill so many comedies. Over exposed trailer. Yes we've all seen the Mike Tyson bit, but the film has so many random bits of comedy that you will enjoy yourself throughout the running time. If the film does fault, it's with the character of Mr. Chow. I like Ken Jeong, but here he plays the character way over the top and it becomes distracting. Heather Graham makes an appearance as well and as she does with almost every role she takes on, you see her boobies. Well, one boob.

The film is funny, I was entertained, and I expect to see good things from Galifianakis. It's vulgar and obscene and don't expect to see much heart near the end or a good message, like Apatow films do. While it does have that one scene in which one character stands up for himself, it doesn't try to throw any real messages out the audience.

Make sure you stay for the first bit of the credits, as the laughs don't stop.

4

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review Sussy :yup: I may wait for this to come on DVD :yup: I saw the trailer and it doesn't look like my sort of comedy :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Michael Bay)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/transformers-20090409-devastator.jpg

Bigger, Louder, But Not Better

So the film goes like this. Sam decides to put on his old shirt from the first film and when he takes it out, a piece of the cube falls out. He picks it up and it imprints a bunch of alien text into his brain. Yeah, this is where the so called story starts. Anyways, bad robots are after this information, good robots must protect him, people run in slow motion, Megan Fox looks hot, someone wants to destroy the sun, they require help from robots so old they use walking canes and then Boom. Something explodes. This is Transformers in a nutshell. The film is so confused on what it's intentions are that it has to literally have one character ask the plot of the film from another. This scene happens in the movie.

A sequel to Transformers has to be bigger and louder, or else what would the point be right? Michael Bay seems to be an advocate of "We Can Fix It In Post" or "We'll Throw Some CGI At It". This is never a good sign and this film is a prime example. For starters, the film is too long. It has unnecessary scenes that do nothing for the film. Seeing Sam's mother on drugs for comedic relief is not funny, it's rather eye rolling. This is screen time that could have been giving to develop a bit more of a story, or hell been axed all together and shave of 20 minutes of failed comedy.

You simply cannot rely on Giant Robots Fighting as a draw for the audience. You need to give them substance, something this film lacks. For one, the main villain from the first one, good old Megatron, takes orders from some dude on a random planet. This guy is the "Fallen" and he returns to earth to destroy the sun, blah, blah, blah he has very little screen time. We don't feel the threat. Speaking of very little screen time, let's look at the main stars of this piece. No, not LaBeouf or Fox, the Autobots. The main reason this movie will make money is because of them and they get shafted hard here. Aside from Prime, every other Autobot is basically background filler. With one key scene in the beginning, then nothing else. Why alienate the fan base that warranted a sequel in the first place. Oh wait, I forgot, they do focus on some Transformers. They are called the twins, speak jive, can't read and one has a gold tooth.

The entire film feels like Bay is just trying to out due himself. I can picture him on the set thinking how to make things seem bigger and more hectic, without giving a damn about the script. A script that is full of pages that read character jumps from explosion here, character runs from explosion there, character screams. But hey, what did I expect from a Bay flick right? Well, he did do The Rock and the first Transformers was really good. The final battle scene in that flick had more going for it, here I couldn't give a damn.

Speaking of no giving a damn, the human characters. Megan Fox, sure she is hot, but can she act? Not if we are going on this performance. Her orange skin was distracting in the first flick, this time it's her big Jolie lips. Labeouf? His role consists of the aforementioned running and screaming. Argh, so much running and screaming that you don't know what is going on or who is who. The robots, now I consider myself to have basic knowledge of the Transformers universe. but I couldn't tell what was what unless they were specifically mentioned, like Starscream or Soundwave. I finally figured if I see a robot, it has to be an evil one because that's all they seemed to be focusing on. Where was Barricade? The cop car that mysteriously disappears from the first film before the climactic battle. I thought they would bring him back here and mention that, but nothing. Instead we get a 5 second cameo from Scorponok, the one who tunnels underground, before he gets lights out. There is a new character, who basically plays the role Anthony Anderson played in the first one, a tech geek. His only purpose is to re-introduce Turturro.

I wanted more from this film, and not in the sense of bigger and louder. It's nice and all, but is that honestly all you think we want? We all know going into a Bay film we will get this, has he given up on giving us anything more? Has it been dumbed down to us guessing just how many explosions he will use in his films now? Too many, for this one. Giant robots fighting each other is cool, but we've seen it once. Is the only thing you're going to offer us is the same thing in a different setting? Change the city to a forest and some pyramids and it's all good?

In defense of the flick, the special effects are top notch, they are epic. They look great up on the big screen and that's where you should see this flick, if you have any interest at all. The big screen and loud sound was made for this flick. The fight sequences are interesting, even if the last one drags on too long. The idea behind the this film is good, the whole history and origins of the Transformers, but instead of diving deeper into that, they elected for more boom boom.

Too many characters (did we really need a robot chick who looked like she belonged in Terminator 3), too many robots (and the ones we actually care about are left for background filter), and an overblown and overly long film. This film could have been 20 minutes shorter. Transformers feels hollow inside. The first film had heart, this one is just dread. I give credit where credit is due and the film is great to see in the theatre, I wasn't really bored, but nor was I really interested.

It will please the target audience of teenage boys who want to see things blow up or Megan Fox run in slow motion. But for everyone else, it's just another summer blockbuster that is louder then the original.

On a side note: The mention of Obama and Swine flu felt out of place and will just date the film in the years to come.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

G-Force (Hoyt Yeatman)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/g_force_movie_image__1_.jpg

Family Friendly Adventure, Just Lacks Laughs


G-Force is a specially trained team of guinea pigs, a mole and a fly. They must foil the plans of Saber, a millionaire, who wants to take over the world with these home appliances that ultimately transform into Megatron. Or something along those lines.

I watched this one because it was available in 3-D. My first Disney Digital 3-d film. From the aspect, the kids will enjoy the things that pop out at you. This film has a few of those moments, water, debris and glass. Although it just didn't do it for me. The 3-D in this film didn't enhance the film or astonish me. Thus, it ultimately feels like a gimmick and will until a certain film that is planned to be released in the near future apparently plans to change that. I'm not saying it wasn't well done, I just expected more.

The film is mixed animation and live action. The animation is obviously the rodents and insects, while the cast is formed of Hangover star Zach Galifianakis, Will Arnett and Bill Nighy. Galifianakis is really timid here and Nighy does his whole British thing, while Arnett plays the G-Rated version of an A-hole. Nothing memorable, and the kids won't care about these people. They want to see the funny guinea pigs do funny things. Yet, in the theatre I was in, which was full of kids, had hardly any laughs. That's not to say they won't enjoy themselves, because the film is entertaining. It's just not that great a comedy.

The voice acting is great, Sam Rockwell plays Darwin, the lead commando. Tracy Morgan is Blaster, if anyone has seen him on 30 Rock, it's the same here. Penelope Cruz is the female character, who toys with the boys on which one she likes. Nicolas Cage plays Speckles, the mole who is a tech whiz. In this film if you did not know it was Cage playing this character, you would never know it was him. The voice is so different that is makes you scratch your head, well done on all parts.

The child favourite without a doubt is Hurley, the guinea pig that our team meets in a pet shop. He has a bad case of flatulence and is the 'dumb' friendly character. He gets the most laughs, which like I said, wasn't many. Finally Steve Buscemi has a small role as a hamster and he plays it exactly as you would picture Buscemi to play it. The voice work from everyone was top notch, but if I were to hand it to anyone, it wold be cage for his transformation to the unknown.

The animation is well done, the final action sequence does feel like it comes straight out of transformers, but it looks neat. The interaction between human and creature is still noticeably fake, even after all these years they can't seem to perfect this. Since this is a Bruckheimer film, you know there has to be non-stop action. This involves car chases left right and centre, covert-operations and battles with giant creatures. The film is fuel injected to the bone with this. There are moments here and there to slow everything down, yet they are extremely short and don't seem to do much to create conflict for the characters. When the guinea pigs are told they aren't special, they get doubt themselves, this lasts all but one scene because in the next they get a pep talk and are back to the chase sequences.

The plot is one that we've all seen before. Unlikely heroes stopping someone from world domination. So don't expect anything new in the story department. The reveal at the end is lame and predictable, the whole bad guy plan is extremely far fetched and doesn't make sense. Although if you're expecting this film to make sense I guess you're in the wrong theatre. These are talking guinea pigs after all.

The film is entertaining and the kids will most likely enjoy it. It does seem like a typical Hollywood kid flick and it is exactly that. There's no life lessons learned and by the end of the film your kid will want a new pet.

3

[The Prestige]

Fabulous reviews you've got going on there, Sus. So Up is really the **** then, eh. I'm giving it a go. I think I have to be in a certain mood to watch this film.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/the_hurt_locker.jpg

Intense and Gripping Drama

The Hurt Locker has a lot going against it. One, it's a modern day war film and if the record shows, these films don't do well at this point in time. Two, it has a no name cast, full of those guys from that movie. Three, how entertaining can a movie be about a guy who disarms bombs. The Hurt Locker is a film that will surprise you on every level.

Jeremy Renner is the bomb expert, who doesn't like to play by the rules. If course, there is always one of them right? Instead of following orders, he likes to play games, take off his communication device and disrobe of his bomb safety gear. Why? Well, if he is going to die, he wants to die comfortable. His team consists of two men, Anthony Mackie, a by the book soldier who doesn't get along with Renner and Brian Geraghty, a young blood who is afraid of dying. They all seem to get on each others nerves, but to survive they must pull together and act as a team.

The film is intense and gritty. Shot hand held for a lot of the scenes, it puts you right beside the bomb. You feel the sweat and hear the ticking. The scenes themselves are done without music, relying more on the drama at hand told straight. Nothing to help build the emotion and this film doesn't need it. There is impending doom music, which to me sounded a bit like The Joker theme from The Dark Knight, but once we get to the disarming stage, it's just us and the bomb.

At first the film feels like it's going to be repetitive. We disarm a bomb, then we are back at base and chit chat, then we go back out there another day to disarm another bomb. Just when it feels like it becomes predictable, they pull the rug from under our feet. We are given scene of emotional depth and action round-up. Don't think for a second all the intense scenes involve bombs.

I've enjoyed Renner is everything he's done and it's nice to see him front and centre here. He plays the 'wild man' part perfectly. Mackie plays the straight man yearning for more. Both these guys have played men in uniform before. Renner with both Swat and 28 weeks later, Mackie in Eagle Eye. There are a few small roles filled out by Ralph Fiennes, David Morse and Guy Pearce. Lost fans can see Evangeline Lilly, as Renner's wife. She is given next to nothing in this film and is merely there for more backstory to Renner.

I really enjoyed this flick, Bigelow has a hit here. My only complaint is the run time. It's a bit long. There are scenes here and there that could be a lot shorter and seem almost totally out of place, along with some sub-plots that don't always work out. On a whole, this film works and is one of the best of this year.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

A Perfect Getaway (David Twohy)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/PHAzgBEJOdxxED_m.jpg



A Predictable, Yet Entertaining Thriller


A couple on their honeymoon go to Hawaii and meet up with another couple along the way. They discover that there is another couple killing people on the island and they suspect each other, among others. Who is the real killer?

This film suffers from the same fate Hide and Seek had, the trailer gives away the ending. Maybe not bluntly, but if you know how these films work, you know how the film will end. Going into this film, I had a pretty good idea, from the trailer, how this one was going to end. I ended up being right, but I still enjoyed the film and what it had to offer. Knowing the ending makes it a bit more interesting because you can look at things from different angles, as opposed to someone who may have no clue at all. Despite the predictable ending this film has, it has more to offer.

The cast consists of funny man Steve Zahn, who has been stepping out of his usual comedic roles and taking on more things these days, and Milla Jovovich as the honeymoon couple. He is a screen writer, she is just happy to be on her honeymoon. We don't get much else from her, besides one scene in which she has a conversation about her past. Zahn does a good job playing the nerdy role. I said in another review he couldn't carry a film (Strange Wilderness) yet here is seems like the type of person who can. Only time will tell, I hope he takes on more than just comedic roles though.

Timothy Olyphant and Kiele Sanchez (Nikki from Lost) are the second couple. He is some kind of ex-marine type guy, who is a man's man, boar killing and all. She comes off as a free spirited chick, who is able to match her significant other. There is a third couple, who pop in and out of the film as the scary duo. They serve their purpose and leave, nothing more to really say about them.

The director, David Twohy tries his hand at something other than sci/f. His resume includes an underrated flick The Arrival and Vin Diesel vehicles Pitch Black & The Chronicles of Riddick. Glad to see him trying his hand at new stuff and it works. The film is entertaining and thrilling, two key things needed in this type of flick. It has it's by the numbers moments, every film like this does, but in sea of films like these, this one isn't bad.

I wish they film did play up the, which couple are the killers, a little more. It could have been a good mystery, but again, if you pay attention enough, you'll guess who's who early on. The film throws clues as to who the killers are left right and centre. Some people might not like how the film tries to fool it's audience and near the end it does shift it's focus, which seemed odd, yet needed. Can I recommend A Perfect Getaway? Sure, for the people who might be interested that is. If you know this type of film is not for you, keep on walking. If you're a little bit interested, give it a look.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

District 9 (Neill Blomkamp)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Scene-from-District-9-200-001.jpg

"Balls To The Walls"

District 9 has been getting a lot of hype and praise to equal that hype. Not many films can do this. I decided that I would try my best to go into this film not knowing much about it. I've seen the teaser and a couple TV spots and knew the basic premise. What I did not know was what a balls to the wall film this is.

Neill Blomkamp has mixed great sci/fi with themes and issues plaguing our society. A blend that works so well in this film that it plays out in two different styles. The first half of the film is told through a documentary style footage, with people talking directly to the camera explaining the backstory of the mothership and basically setting up the rest of the film. Half way through the film Blomkamp switches the style to a more conventional style of filmmaking, yet it isn't a jarring switch. The two styles bleed into each other and both feel the same.

The film is set in South Africa, the aliens are sequestered into these slums and blocked off away from humans. This segregation is reminiscent of our own history and it works well here, making the film more believable than a film like Independence Day. While watching this film I got a sense of Cloverfield and some Slumdog Millionaire. I wouldn't say it's a mix of the two, but I just got the feeling from it. I saw Cloverfield because this is a sci/fi that we haven't seen before. It's not based on anything and the creators have free range to do what they want. This was apparent in all the awesome weaponry they had. Cloverfield was new, fresh and a monster that we had no idea what it could do. I had no idea what this film was about to do, which was blow me away.

The second half, which is the more conventional filmmaking style, is action-packed and bloody violent. I had no idea what I was in for, but once I saw that the lead got his hands on the weapon technology, I had a huge smile on my face. What he did with it, made me smile even more. There were plenty of "Holy Sh*t" moments on my end. The most fun I've had at the movies this year, even more than the other sci/fi entertainer Star Trek.

The film is gritty, dirty and everything that it needs to be to sell this idea. The special effects look marvelous, especially when placed on such a desolate and depressing backdrop. The slums are dirty and turn into a warzone. A warzone that goes on for a long time and you never get tired of. You end up wanting more, craving more.

For a film with no star names attached and a lead who hasn't acted in anything before, I was surprised in the depth and emotion that these characters had and what Sharlto Copley had to offer. He's between a rock and a hard place. His character transformation from beginning to end is real and saddening. It's not easy to get me to care for CGI creatures, George Lucas failed, Peter Jackson succeeds, again. The alien creatures look great and I was surprised at how well I was able to connect to the Christopher character.

The film is original, fresh and unexpected. I was never bored and had no idea what was going to happen next. In all this action and drama, is there any room for some sweet romantic moments? The answer is yes and it ends on a beautiful note.

Go see this one in theatres.

4.5

[Thursday Next]

Never heard of District 9 until today, just read two reviews of it, both highly recommending it. Think I'll avoid reading anymore about it and go see it. Or, more likely, wait for the dvd.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/eli_roth_basterds.jpg

"These Basterds Are Worth Seeing"

Once Upon A Time....In Nazi Occupied France opens the film in the first chapter (a signature Tarantino style) of this WWII film in which Jewish American soldiers, who've deemed themselves "The Basterds", ambush and scalp Nazi's. Their story intertwines with another in which a Jewish girl survives an attack on her family and lives among the Germans as a French theatre owner. The theatre in which numerous high ranking German officials will be at, a theatre that "The Basterds" will be at.

Tarantino is a favourite director of mine, not the top, but he's up there. Many people complain he simply rips off older, better films. I say nay. He is inspired by them because he loves cinema so much. Any interview with the guy will prove his vast film knowledge, a knowledge that he has used in his film-making, giving us some of the best films of the 90's. He doesn't have many films under his belt, but the ones their are all highly praised and one even earned him an Oscar. He is able to mix different genres well and is competent in each one. His last 3 films were a throwback to grindhouse features, a two part revenge story that mixes the spaghetti western and the Asian martial arts and finally a novel adaptation. Yet his praise is mostly in his writing, which is why he has an Oscar in the first place.

Inglorious Basterds is yet another film from Tarantino in which he mixes violence with characters who seem too cool for school. Brad Pitt plays Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds and one who can speak almost fluent Italian. He has a scar around his neck, yet it is never answered as to why, and he seems to be having too good a time here, killing Nazi's. He enlists 8 men to be apart of his squad of Basterds, along with his 2nd in command (I'm assuming) Donny Donowitz, played by Eli Roth. Who for once does not annoy me. His best scene involves the most brutal part of the film, reminiscent of Pesci's scene in Casino. Two more men join the Basterds, one is Til Schweiger, who is famous for killing 13 Nazi's in cruel and inhuman ways. The second is Michael Fassbender, a Scottish soldier posing as a German to initiate Operation Kino. A secret mission that will involve explosions and death. Seems like a lot of "Basterds" to keep track of, and it was. Tarantino loses half of them half way through. Missing scenes from trailers would indicate there was more story for each of them, but for the film as it stands now, it's incomplete. These characters are forgettable faces, this film needed more time with it's title characters.

In a Tarantino flick you can guarantee a couple things and getting good performances from his actors is definitely one of them. Brad Pitt is hilarious as Aldo and Roth is menacing as Donowitz. The short scenes with the Basterds are good, good enough to want more and feel disappointed when you don't get it. Krueger, from National Treasure fame, plays a famous actress working for the English, posing as a German. She has a thick accent and pulls off her scenes quite well. I didn't find her annoying at all, and even though Mélanie Laurent does a decent job as the Jewish girl posing as a French woman, her subplot with a German Private is boring and almost forgettable. It's not till the ending of this sub plot does it become remotely interesting, but it seems too late. The stand out is without a doubt is Christoph Waltz, playing a German who is nicknamed "The Jew Hunter". He plays the guy with enough kindness to make him creepy and enough crazy to make him fearful.

This film tells two different stories that meet up at the end. Each one has their own fair share of subplots, that seem to distract from more time with the Basterds. There are numerous scenes that are quite shocking and will leave you with a big smile, or a disgusted look of disdain. The violence here is more gritty and real, thus it feels more involving. Kill Bill has limbs flying and gallons of blood, but it was too over the top and comical to be taken seriously. Here it has that gritty feel to it that it just makes you wince when it happens.

Not Tarantino's best work, but then again will he ever top Pulp Fiction? Instead it's a welcome addition to his resume of films that I can say I enjoy. The length of this one is a little long and it may drag in some places, but the overall feel at the end is enjoyment. He takes his characters and lets them takeover the story, which is why the historical facts in this film are more interesting than others. There are countless war films that are plagued with people already knowing the outcome. Valkyrie is an example of a film that the audience knew how it was going to end. This one throws it all out the window.

A tighter running time and more time spent with the people who want to see would have made this film even more fun for me, but I'll take what I can get.

4

[nebbit]

Thanks for the :cool: reviews :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Halloween II (Rob Zombie)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/MichaelMyersHalloween2.jpg


A cookie-cutter slasher film that tries to be artistic


The film picks up right where the last one left us. Laurie is walking down the street covered in blood with a gun still in her hand. She is hospitalized, along with her friend Annie. Michael survive the gunshot to the head and comes back to reunite with his sister. Killing everyone in his way.

Not much of a plot, not much of a film. This sequel punishes those who had any interest in the first and almost immediately kills this re-invented series. The remake of the original is not bad and Zombie did a decent job of bringing Michael Myers to the new century of horror, but with the sequel he seems to have steered too far into House of 1,000 corpses territory.

Why is Michael so terrifying? Because he never had a reason to kill. He just did it. In the words of Dr. Loomis, he was pure evil. Freddy had the revenge thing, Jason has the mommy issues, Michael was just evil. Zombie, on the other hand, seems to have missed this point and deemed it necessary to have Michel do things because of visions he has of his mother and a white horse. Enough with the mommy issues, leave that crap for Jason. Michael got his background story given to us in the remake. He is a sick and disturbing boy, now we see that he has a method behind his madness?

The film's script consists of dream sequence, wake up and scream obscenities. Then we cut to Michael making a trip to Mount Doom, killing people along the way. Repeat this for about an hour. Then have a lame, not thrilling, not scary pathetic excuse for a climax at the end, that takes place in a shed. A shed in which Myers stands still while our main character battles herself and imaginary people. This is the same main character whom people seem to have liked in the first film, here she becomes an annoying crying little emo baby. The film brings back a few character whom we thought were dead from the first film, only to see them die here. Waste? I think so. Purpose? Nothing what so ever. Dr. Loomis has a separate story alongside Myers and Strode. One that makes him look like a total douche bag and seems to have been thrown in to make the film run longer and seem more fleshed out. The problem is that it's paper thin and out of character.

Myers is no longer scary, and neither is this series. The film is laughable and the predictable by the numbers set up and execution will make you fall asleep. After years and years of slasher films, you would think they would want the deaths to be unique and the very least creative. Seeing this horror legends slice and dice is what the fans of the original series want. Halloween II has none of this. All Myers does is stab people multiple times. Grunting while doing so, which also ruins the myth of this character. He is suppose to be this silent killer. With the exception of a face stomp, none of these kills are memorable.

Zombie here seems to have gone backwards in his film-making skills. The whole thing feels like a first time music video director takes a shot at a horror film. The sloppy editing and hand held camera make it almost impossible to see. The darkness of the film doesn't help either. I respect Zombie, more than Eli Roth, for trying to put a new stamp on the horror genre, but this is a horrible mess. Being a member of the Splat Pack, you can expect this film to be excessive in its violence. It is, but it's never really too much, specifically with how filsm are done these days.

This is probably one of the weakest slasher films to have come out in a while. Prom Night is the only thing I can think of that is lower on the scale. Things are left unexplained for god knows what reason. Apparently Myers and Strode share a psychic link to each other? Halloween was an interesting take from a fan of the horror genre on a classic. Halloween II is the same fan's dream, only in his own little weird world. A giant misstep, and this series is already done.

Skip it.

rating_1_5

[Sexy Celebrity]

Halloween II

You nailed it, but I'm gonna do my own review in a second. I need to vent and express myself. It's not a good movie, yet, I liked some things....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/MichaelMyersHalloween2.jpg

Worst mask ever. How is that supposed to be Michael Myers?! It looks more like Leatherface.

I respect Zombie, more than Eli Roth, for trying to put a new stamp on the horror genre

Not me. I appear to be the only one who loves those Hostel movies.

Apparently Myers and Strode share a psychic link to each other?

I guess it's a nod to Halloween 5 - which I love - where Michael has a psychic bond with his niece, Jamie.

[Sir Toose]

I guess it's a nod to Halloween 5 - which I love - where Michael has a psychic bond with his niece, Jamie.

I really like the original series for what it is... seems the newer ones with Zombie at the helm are trying to be something they're not.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I've only seen the original, the one with Paul Rudd, followed by H20 and Resurrection.

[nebbit]

Halloween II [B][SIZE=4][COLOR=Black](Rob Zombie)
Skip it.
1.5
Bought it for $2 I paid tooooo much for it :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Getting it for free is paying too much for it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Life During Wartime (Todd Solondz)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/movie-life_during_wartime-stills-12.jpg

"A Dark...Dark Film"

Caught this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Life During Wartime is a depressing and envelop pushing film that crosses boundaries, but never feels gross or shocking for the sake of it. For those familiar with Todd Solondz previous films Welcome To The Dollhouse and Happiness, you know what type of material is in his films. This one is no exception.

Telling the story of a dysfunctional family, we follow 3 separate stories. The father, who was just released from prison after some cruel and disgusting charges tries to find his son, to make sure he doesn't turn out like him. The son is in college, he has two siblings, a younger brother who is turning 13 and becoming a man with a bar mitzvah and a younger sister who is a karaoke singer. The wife/mother is looking for a new lover in her life and finds this other man who makes her, in her own words to her 12 year old son, wet. Finally the sister of the mother who mixes romance and her work. The problem is that death follows her wherever she goes and it has kind of driven her crazy. Even a small scene with a second sister is here in which she hides her depressed life behind fake smiles and success.

Get all that? This is my first Todd Solondz film, but I know of his previous films and what they dealt with and I can say that Happiness is darker. Life During Wartime isn't with it's fair share of uncomfortable scenes. Specifically the son asking about his father and why he is in prison. The father is played by Ciarán Hinds, who has little dialogue, but the scenes in which he confronts his son is powerful and stands as the most memorable. Paul Reubens plays an interesting character who only two scenes, but those two scenes are stand outs.

Everything about the film is awkward, straight from the beginning. There are moments that you laugh at, that make you feel dirty. Janey as the mother is comical and if you're a fan of Happiness look out for some recurring characters. It kind of plays out like a sequel (according to my friend, who's a fan).

The film is well shot and acted, it doesn't really drag, but it is slow. It's mostly scene after scene of conversations. It's not a laugh riot and there are no laugh out loud scenes. The comedy is dark and subtle at times. It's more dramatic and depressing than comedic. It feels short and the ending leaves a lot to be desired. It was abrupt and left a lot of questions unanswered.

It explores how well one can forgive someone and mirrors reality. It will divide the audience and fans of his earlier work will most likely be satisfied. I enjoyed it, but it's not a film I would want to see again. I give it credit for being a well done film and it's thought provoking in some scenes, as a whole the film is good. It just has a certain audience and you'll know if you're one of them or not.

3.5

[Iroquois]

Nice review, man. I've seen a couple of Solondz's films and reckon they're pretty decent, will definitely check this out when it comes out.

[beelzebubbles]

I admire Solondz. He is uncompromising but I have to examine whether I can handle another trip through his understanding of the human condition. I am still getting over Happiness, but Welcome to the Dollhouse was the story of my childhood...only sunnier. :)

The cast sounds outstanding. Is that Shirley Henderson I see before me?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Indeed it is.

The characters are the same ones from Happiness, just different actors.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Invention Of Lying (Ricky Gervais & Matthew Robinson)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/invention_of_lying_1.jpg


"Clever Concept That Never Fully Materializes"


In a world where everyone must tell the truth, one man after being fired and almost evicted is pushed to the limits. His brain does something abnormal, he tells a lie. Not just any lie, the world's first lie. Since no one in this universe has ever heard a lie before, they take it as fact. Now this man has the world at his feet.

It is a clever concept, a clever and more massive spin on Liar Liar, yet that might not be such a good thing. The premise of this film is funny, but it becomes too much of itself and is tiresome after a while. The joke goes on and on, he tells lies, people believe him. In one scene a lie gets him in too deep to dig himself back up and that's where the conflict in this film comes in. Yet one can ask themselves a simple question, why not just lie his way out of it, instead of digging deeper holes.

Gervais is at the lead again, after his feel good comedy Ghost Town, which people decided to skip. This time around he's also behind the camera, yet nothing technical about this film pops out, it plays out like an average comedy, relying on it's one concept. The one concept gets some laughs here and there, but there are never any really laugh out loud moments.

The film has some emotional scenes, that influence the rest of the film. The comedy kind of takes a second step to the theme of religion. Some people may find this irritating. Jennifer Garner plays the romantic lead, who finds Gervais fat and with a stubby nose, not a good match genetically for a marriage and children. Yet they form a friendship, one in which Gervais hopes will blossom into something more. Does it? Well, how do romantic comedies usually work out? Here the outcome doesn't seem too believable. Things happens and people react without really knowing why, this leaves little for character arc.

How do people live in a world with no lies? Well, when you want to watch a film, you go to the theatre. In that theatre you'll see a guy sitting in a chair reciting history. Since, movies are mostly fiction, no one can make one, cause it would be a lie. See where this film goes? A retirement home becomes "A place where old people go to die", so on and so on.

The film does have some really funny cameos. It's mostly the usual comedy round, but there is at least one in which I was so caught off guard that I just couldn't help but laugh. Look out for a cop. Jonah Hill and Louis C.K. play two supporting character, neither are funny.

The film is funny, but not enough to warrant a theatre viewing. This has rental written all over it. It simply cannot stand on it's concept for too long, because it becomes a bit dull. If it were a short, I could enjoy it more.

2.5

[nebbit]

Thanks I will rent it :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/where-the-wild-things-are.jpg

"There's One In All Of Us"

After getting into an argument with his mother, young Max runs away from home. He runs into a nearby wooded area, that leads us into his wild imagination. He, dressed up in a wolf costume, sets sail to an island that is inhabited by these giant talking creatures, who then take Max as their king.

The Shawshank Redemption and 2001: A Space Odyssey are both successful films that are based on short stories. Where The Wild Things Are is a new film from Spike Jonze based on a child's book that is extremely short. So short that one would think how on earth could it ever be turned into a film? One would have to go beyond the written and illustrated pages to make something like this work. It seems films based on stories and books that are relatively short succeed more than films based on books that are longer. There is more room for them to move around with.

Jonze, who started off in commercials and has since had a very successful working relationship with Charlie Kauffman, is behind the camera for this adaptation. Along with Dave Eggers, they add much more depth and emotion to the story. I knew going in that the film would have next to no plot, and that's pretty much the case, but that's not what this film needs. In other words, much like 2001: A Space Odyssey again, this is more of an experience, than a film. An experience that is not all fun and laughter.

Where The Wild Things Are is funny and heartfelt, yet also depressing and lonely. The advertisements make the film seems like a wonderful kids adventure. While the film does have bits of adventure in it, it is much darker and a bit more adult. The film explores relationships, loneliness, sadness, trust, love, etc. More than one might expect from a film based on a book that has very few words in it.

Max runs away from home after his mother doesn't give him the attention he wants. Who can blame her, she is a single mother, working hard and trying to have a relationship. He finds comfort and acceptance in this world he creates with these creatures that at first seem intimidating, but once you get up close to them are harmless. Each one has their own distinct voice and look. The voice actors all do a great job bringing just the right amount of emotion to each one. Gandolfini voices Carol, Max's counterpart in the film. They have an instant connection. Both characters have to go through their own complex obstacles and learn from each other. Chris Cooper and Paul Dano supply voices for more Wild Things, each add their own little flair to their characters and it's Dano as the Ram, who gets the most laughs.

In order for this film to work, you need to connect to these beasts. I did, and the film worked for me. I was having fun when they were and sad when they were crying. Max Records, the young boy, has to carry this film, being the only human on screen for 80% of the film. He brings that sense of innocence to the role, seeing his mistakes and growing up to try to make them right. The creatures are wonderful. I'm glad they didn't use CGI for the entire characters. The use of people in costumes, mixed with animatronics and CGI work beautifully and feel more real than anything Michael Bay can conjure up.

The soundtrack is wonderful and the film has that emotional punch that will grab you. It might drag in places, but the overall experience is a good one. Be careful if you brings your kid though, I'm not sure if the content will be too much for them. There are some frightening scenes, and one in which a limb falls off. It may also be just too weird for some kids. Max literally hides inside one of these creatures. Where The Wild Things Are is a wild, weird fantasy that I look forward to see again.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

SAW VI (Kevin Greutert)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/saw_VI_photo_03-535x351.jpg


Can We Finally Put A Nail In This Coffin?


With Special Agent Strahm dead, Hoffman can continue Jigsaw's work and make more people stare death in the face for a chance at redemption. Although, not everything goes according to his plans, as two agents are hot on his tracks.

Okay, so you know the gist of what the film is about. It's exactly the same as every other SAW film. A killer puts someone in a trap, twists and turns and boom, leave room for another film. This one is no different. First being tagged as the final SAW film. The one to complete Jigsaw's true game, it leaves the viewer with an emptiness and false promises.

Once you get into a number as high as 6, in a horror franchise, you know the film can't be that good. It seemed that SAW somehow broke that trend and gave it's fans what they wanted. Sure, the quality has dropped with every new entry, but it's not like the films are horribly bad. Saw V was the worst of the bunch, I dreaded the next one. Yet to my surprise, this one is a step up.

What this series has manage to do is keep a continuous mystery throughout every film. Each new film would add another piece to a puzzle that fans just ate up. What's on the tape, what's in the box, what's in the letter, etc. Keeping an audience interested in a series this long, I give them props. Making a new SAW film every year in time for Halloween and not having them be excessively bad. I also give props to. In the end, the SAW series is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

I love the first one, the rest have gone from mediocre to bad. This one falls into the mediocre category. It has all the gore, all the elaborate traps all the confusion the others have, yet I didn't come away as ticked off or as dirty as I did with V. I still find Hoffman to be a poor substitute for Jigsaw. I'm not a fan of their explanation for his final, true game. I'm not even a fan of the traps in this one, yet the film managed to be entertaining.

I laughed at parts I shouldn't have, I cheered for scenes that involved mutilation of body parts. For an average movie goer, I'd tell them to avoid this one, but for a fan of the series, I say enjoy. It tidies up a lot of unanswered questions and yes, leaves the door open for the next installment. One I hope I don't have to see, but will obviously end up watching.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/paranormalactivity_hero.jpg

A Theatre Experience I'll Never Forget

A couple decide to document their nights while the sleep, after they hear strange noises that they believe to be a haunting.

I respect this film, for the fact that it was shot for less than 20,000, had absolutely no marketing campaign and has become a huge success based on word of mouth and the audience demanding to see it. If only other studios would follow suit and listen to people demanding to see movies they want to see, maybe there wouldn't be so much crap out there.

Paranormal Activity is shot like Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project, REC, Cannibal Holocaust, etc. If any of those films gave you motion sickness, you might want to skip this one. Half the film is shot while they sleep, so the film is on a tri-pod, the other half is them walking around with it. So if you've never been a fan of those films, skip this one. Second, the film is not as scary as people make it out to be. Instead, it is one creepy and suspenseful film, that seeing in a theatre, only heightened my enjoyment of it.

The audience I went with, all had a collective "Oh My God". I could hear it every time something creepy happened. You could literally feel everyone in the theatre holding their breath every time they went to sleep. Again, if you are the type of person who wants to watch a film and not hear a peep out of anyone else, skip this film.

Now the film itself, shot in one week, small (very small) budget and every penny of it went towards the special effects. The special effects are what sell the film, if you don't buy them, the film will not creep you out. They looked real and impressive enough to push the film into a successful goal, which is to scare people. If you are already afraid of the dark, this film will not help you. Every creek, thump, noise you hear in your house will now have you thinking twice.

Less is more, The Blair Witch Project uses this, as does Paranormal Activity. The two leads, are haunted by a demon, one we never see, only hear. Whenever you go into a horror film, as a kid you would close your eyes in fear. Big mistake, because it's the ears you need to be covering. The sound is what makes you jump, hear nothing, fear nothing. The sound design behind this film is what is scary people, accompanied by the visuals (memorable scenes with the powder and bed sheets).

As the film progresses, the haunting gets worse. I don't want to give anything away, and I urge you to not watch the trailer. I watched the trailer and was waiting for those things to happen, it took away from the general fear. Not knowing what to expect will make this film that much better, that much creepier and that much more entertaining. I didn't expect it to be as funny as it was either, the lead male had some comic relief dialogue, the ease the tension.

The couple are believable, the hand held camera angle works here and the fear will set in. I applaud Paranormal Activity, for not only becoming an unheard of success, but for being one of the creepiest films I've ever seen.

Bravo.

4

[nebbit]

Nice reviews Sussy :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

G.I.Joe (Stephen sommers)

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/gijoesuperbowlfulltop.jpg

"I Went In Expecting To Hate It"

A top secret organization known as G.I.Joe must take on an arms dealer hell bend on destroying parts of the world.

In watching the previews for this film the first thing that came to my mind was "This is going to suck". The over the top cheese factor was all over the previews. The suits they wear to make them run faster, jump higher, was ridiculous. Not to mention the horribly miscast lead of Tatum and the out of the blue decision to include Quaid. With all of this going against, I finished the film was a smile on my face. I was...wait for it....entertained.

I thought I was going to hate this film, it didn't feel like a G.I. Joe film to me, it felt like they were just cashing in on the character names and fan base. This still feels true, but the film has fun with itself and never tries to be more than the sum of its parts. When you compare it to other loud and dumb action films of the summer, like Transformers 2 and Wolverine, G.I. Joe is better.

The plot is inane and they do screw up some characters. They had a chance to do something special with the "Rise of Cobra" but the sequences of his "flashback" seem wasted. The character himself is weird and nothing what I, or the fans for the most part, expected. Is he bad? In those terms yes, but for some strange reasons he works in this film. He was more interesting than any of the other characters. Scarlett is heavily underwritten as is Heavy Duty. In the realms of this film they do their job, heavy gunner and sex pot. Duke, the aforementioned Tatum is the main character and Tatum plays it wooden. He has a relationship with the Baroness, but it's hastily thrown together and doesn't have the weight it should. The is the same for Cobra and his relationships in the film.

The special effects are mixed here, sometimes it looks horrible, such as Destro's face and the obvious green screen moments. Other times it blends in relatively well with the action scenes. The attack on the Joes and the Paris chase sequences are well done and thrilling. I get excited seeing a group of highly trained "bad-guys" fight highly trained "good-guys". I would guess that's why I liked the movie as much as I did. That and every scene with Snake Eyes. Who, for a character who doesn't speak, has more back story to him than most of the other characters.

This film is not as bad as everyone says it is, it is pure popcorn entertainment with over the top action sequences and some cheese. The 3rd act takes place underwater and there are fight sequences in underwater vehicles. It's a neat spin on the space battles you see in Star Wars. I expected trash, got high-octane entertainment. I might be really generous with this score and on a second viewing it might go lower, but as I said before...I was entertained.


3.5

[nebbit]

Umm may watch this :yup: thanks Sussy :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

I will have to classify it as a guilty pleasure and I know full well that most people here will not/do not like it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/fantastic-mr-fox-3.jpg



Holy Cuss, This Is A Great Film

Giving up his life of a chicken thief because of a child on the way, Mr. Fox gets a job as a newspaper writer and lives underground. Years pass, he child is older and he wants to move to a tree and not feel poor anymore. Along the way he takes in his nephew and decides to steal again, from the three biggest farmers. The farmers get wise and start a battle against Mr. Fox, his family and all their creature friends.

At first I didn't know if I wanted to see this, the animation looked really bad. But after thinking about it for a bit, I found that it fit into Anderson's style, it was something that he would do. So I gave the film a shot and I'm glad I did. This film has Anderson's signature style all over it, right down to the obvious voice casting, which has the likes of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Michael Gambon, Owen Wilson, and Willem Dafoe.

A lot of people, and I'm including myself in this bunch, might think nothing of this film. After all, it doesn't have the bright, adventurous feel of the recent Disney/Pixar films that have been dominating the animation scene. I'd even throw Dreamworks into that bunch. Those films are done by people who are at ease in their field, animated director like Brad Bird and John Lasseter know their way around the animation style. Yet here comes auteur Wes Anderson, who has a unique style and sense of comedy. His transition to animation, stop motion animation no less, is smart, funny and a pleasure. Is it his best film? Of course not, but it's one of the more enjoyable ones.

The voice cast all work well, Clooney does a good job as the lead. He has that leadership tone in his voice, that arrogance that is needed for the character. Streep isn't given much to do, so her role as the wife is pretty basic, as is the character. Their son Ash, voice by Bored To Death star Jason Schwartzman was a stand out for me, as was Eric Chase Anderson, as Kristofferson. That name might not sound familiar, that's because his resume only consists of Anderson films. Bill Murray plays a badger and Fox's lawyer, who advises him not to buy the tree house. Fox does anyway and that's why he's in this mess. The animals are really small and live in this world where there are apparently small motorbikes for them to use. They can communicate with the human characters, no one seems to find it odd in this little world they live in. You won't find it odd either, you'll just be enjoying the fun.

Each chapter is subtitled, Fox's Master Plan A, Fox's Master Plan B, etc. They even tell you how time passes in human years and fox years and in a comical bit one human hour compare to one fox hour. You never know how long these hours are in comparison to each other, you don't want to know either, it just adds to the uniqueness of the film. At heart, these characters are still wild animals, as Fox even says this in the film, and the way they eat and "fight" each other proves this.

The film has that Anderson humour and might go over some kids heads. It's dark in some places, as one character dies, but I think they will enjoy it. They won't jump up and down for it like Up, or Finding Nemo. They won't want to go out and buy the latest Mr. Fox stuffed animal or toy. This feels more like a film for adults, it doesn't really cater to the kids, but they will have their bits to laugh at, like the possum who stares blankly at some people for whatever reason.

This film was made from scratch, this world Anderson creates is fun and I had a fun time being in it. The film flies by it's running time and I never found the film dragging. It was in and out. As stated before, the kids might enjoy this, but it's more for adults. There's smoking and there's even a unique way of swearing, which I found funny. The camera movements scream Wes Anderson and if you're a fan, then you will enjoy this very much.

One of my favourite films of the year.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Nine (Rob Marshall)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/ninetop.jpg

I Wanted To Like It More Than I Did

Guido Contini, a famous Italian director, is struggling with his next big film. He has no script and no inspiration, but everyone is counting on him. He tries to juggle both his new film, his wife, his mistress, his producer and his muse. Oh yeah, he also talks to his dead mother.

Nine is an ambitious film, I'll give it that. Rob Marshall, the director of the Best Picture winner Chicago serves up a mix bag with Nine. The film feels like a Marshall is trying to rekindle the magic he had with Chicago, he comes up short, specifically with the musical numbers. For everything that I liked about it, there were two things I didn't. Nine needs to be more focused and shorter for it to be a film I would recommend.

The film is about film-making, yet the way Marshall presents the film to us is in the style of a stage play. Everything from the set-pieces to lighting screams stage play. It was an interesting touch, but felt out of place because it dealt with the art of film-making so much. The musical numbers, all uninspiring and rather boring, even attest to this. With the exception of Fergie, who gives us the best song and dance number that uses sand in a creative way, all the other numbers are generic and rather 'not good'. When you have a Grammy winner singing a song and then have Kate Hudson sing one, there is a difference, and it is more noticeable than the filmmakers might have wanted.

Nine has a great cast, most of them are Oscar winners too. Daniel Day Lewis, with an amazing Italian accent, is the obvious stand out. He plays sexy and stressed all in one look. Penelope Cruz is the mistress, who has the sexiest scene of this movie, her career and this year. Her work in this film is pretty basic, the other lover who wants to be the one loved. With the exception of DDL, the only other actor that is given any kind of emotional depth is Marion Cotillard. She has to go through the realization that her husband is cheating on her and make the choice to stay or leave. Everyone else is pretty much there to fill up time and sing their one song. Judie Dench is the fashion designer and she plays a motherly figure, whereas Sophia Loren plays his actual mother, well his dead mother, but he still sees and talks to her. Fergie has her one scene in which she steals the show with her tune and then Nicole Kidman turns up at the end and makes you wince with her accent. Don't get me started on Kate Hudson.

The problem is that these are good actors, with just no material to work with. Daniel Day Lewis is great, but he's a hard character to connect with, he's sleeping around with a lot of women, it feels like half the cast. Emotional scenes don't play out as well as they should and the film drags itself to the finish line near the end. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner, but it kept going.

On the plus side, the choreography is great and the cinematography really grabs you, even if it is a little misplace with it's stage feel. The film is well put together and the editing is well done. It weaves it's story in and out of timelines from Guido's life, during the musical numbers. The film isn't bad, but it didn't do anything for me either. Leaving a musical not tapping your toes or even remembering the tunes may be a bad sign. I liked it enough to give it a good rating, the cast and style are good enough for me to do so, but everything else makes me lean on the side of telling you to rent this. It's well made, but has no real heart and the film is a little on the long side, you may be checking your watch.


3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Avatar (James Cameron)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/avatar_tank_lo_1466784c.jpg

It's Gorgeous, It's Entertaining, It's A Visual Orgasm.

A paraplegic marine is sent to a program that would give him the ability to walk, as well as be over ten feet tall with blue skin. He becomes a Na'vi, these native like creatures that live on Pandora, a moon that scientists and marines want to invade to grab some minerals that are worth lots and lots of money.

I must say that before I saw Avatar, in IMAX 3-D no less, I made an effort to avoid every trailer, every TV spots and anything regarding the plot. It was difficult because everything on the internet and in the media was AVATAR for the months leading up to it. But I managed to pull it off, knowing that knowing nothing about it would probably heighten my experience. It did. Was I expecting to be blown away? I was, did I? For the most part. The film, from a visual and technical stand point is marvelous. Is it the next step in film-making? It looks like it, but it feels more like a first step and not the giant leap people have been waiting for.

Avatar stars the next big star, Sam Worthington. His twin brother has died and the government needs him to operate this avatar that is worth millions. Since he is genetically identical, they figured it would be fine. Sigourney Weaver is the person spearheading the operation, she is always butting heads with Stephen Land, the Colonel and Giovanni Ribisi, the head honcho of everything. She wants to learn and comes to love the natives, they want to blow them all up. There is our conflict ladies and gentlemen. Where is Worthington in all this? He becomes emotionally attached to one of the Na'vi creatures and fights on their side. I don't blame him because for the first time ever, I was sexually attracted to a creature created from motion capture, played by Trekkie Zoe Saldana.

So Avatar is the big game changer, or so they say. Let me say that I wanted this film to be my Star Wars. I wasn't alive when that film came out, so I've never really had that AWE moment. Lord of the Ring came close and Avatar has come even closer. But it never really reached it. Cameron and his team have created a world with so much detail that you'll probably have to see the film twice just to break the surface. He paints the film in beautiful colours, even at night. Everything illuminates beautifully, and it was a smart move. Using 3-D technology, Cameron knew he had to brighten the picture, since everyone would have these dark classes on their eyes. His camera, which he created, gave him an edge on using the technology and he uses it well. It's not gimmicky like G-Force or lame like Harry Potter.

The film has many memorable sequences. I had heard the final battle is off the wall crazy and while it was well done and looked great, I didn't feel like it was 'off the wall crazy'. Seeing Worthington try and tame a creature of flight was one of the more memorable moments. Every moment on Pandora is beautiful and you literally have no idea what to expect. Cameron has created something new here and I commend him for that. In a year full of sequels and load obnoxious films that feel stale, Cameron has created a world that is new, fresh and bright. The story is something we've seen before, but we connect well enough with the characters that we care about the end battle. Did I care in Transformers? Hell no.

Cameron has yet to disappoint me, he continuously pushes the edge of technology and film in general. He takes risks and he manages to pull it off every time, despite the nay sayers. There have been millions of them, they doubted Titanic and when he proved them wrong, they doubted him again with Avatar. In my opinion, he's proved them wrong again, but I can see a lot of people not liking the film as much, The reason? A lot of people are having gripes with the story. It's not bad, it's just been done. I don't care if it's been done, as long as it's done well. Avatar does it well. People tell me that they don't expect the film to blow them away, it might not. I totally expect people to be 50/50 on this film.

In the end, Avatar is a film you need to see. I saw it in 3-D and in IMAX, I went in knowing nothing about it. I had no idea that they all controlled the Na'vi creatures, I had no idea about why they were there or even that he had a twin. Was the film worth it? It sure was, the experience is one to marvel in. This film was a film made for IMAX, and in the words of Cameron himself, made for 3-D. I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much as I did if it were a regular screen. Everyone's talking about it, everyone's seeing it, so be a part of the phenomenon.

4

[nebbit]

Gerat reviews, my Nephews boys want me to take them to see the Fantastic Mr Fox :yup: we saw the trailer when we went to see Planet 51 :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Up In The Air (Jason Reitman)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/vera.png

Jason Reitman Is Becoming One Of My Favourite Directors

George Clooney is Ryan Bingham, a guy who has distant himself from family and friends. So much that he is a motivational speaker about only caring about things that really matter, or that can fit in your back pack. His job requires him to fly around the country firing people. Once this young hot shot girl comes along, she brings with her technology, a computer that makes it easier to fire people from the comfort of your own office. No more expensive flights for those guys like Bingham flying around firing people, this obviously causes a problem for him.

I always thought that the success of Juno was more because of Reitman than Cody, yet she was the one who got all the accolades. Both Juno and Thank You For Smoking are hilarious films with heart and are competently directed from Reitman. Both contain dark humour and themes (smoking/teen pregnancy) and yet they never cross that line of bad taste. Up In The Air is a welcomed addition and it follows the success and hilarity of Reitman's previous two films. Up In The Air is not my favourite Reitman film, that would be Thank You For Smoking, but it's his most mature work and it shows us that if he is this good now, what he has to deliver in the future will be marvelous.

Clooney is the lead, he has numerous plastic cards in his wallet for just about everything. Airlines, rental cars, hotel suits - he never throws them away, which comes back to hurt him when he has to try 3 or 4 of them before finding the right hotel room key. He meets Alex, played by Vera Farmiga, she is exactly like Ryan, the only difference between them, according to her, is that she has a vagina. Clooney belittles the new girl Natalie, played by Anna Kendrick, who brings in new technology, but is inexperienced in the 'art' of firing people. Or in their words, letting people go so they can make an easier transition to another stage in their lives. Jason Bateman, who is Clooney's boss, forces him to take the new girl under his wing on some firing trips, before they install these new computers. It's not a sexual relationship at all, it's more of a mentor and student relationship. Clooney and Farmiga have a purely sexual relationship, until Clooney starts to fall for her and must re-evaluate his life.

Along the way he must take a cardboard cutout of his sister and her fiancé, you know "like that French gnome movie", funny Amélie reference. Natalie begins challenging all of Ryan's beliefs in life. The chemistry between the two is not only funny, but it feels real. A father figure, for her when she needs to learn about life, in her job and relationships. The romance between Clooney and Farmiga is genuine and depressing. I was able to predict some things from the film, but the way it unfolds mixes the reality of the character's lonely life into the comedic elements of the film. The film balances both of these pretty well and it never weighs one over the other.

As mentioned before Bateman is Clooney's boss, his role is not as funny as some would expect from him, given his resume, but he does well. As does everyone else, Zach Galifianakis and J.K. Simmons have bit parts as two employees who lose their jobs. Clooney falls into the role perfectly, he's a normal guy with elite status. He thinks he's better than others, but he doesn't have to think it. He by passes people in lines waiting to buy their tickets, argues the best place to rent a car for luxury and he has a number in mind that he wants to reach in regards of miles flown. If he gets that number, he gets another card to add to his wallet.

Up In The Air is funny in subtle ways and respectable in others. It's story is depressing, especially for these times, but Reitman and Co. manage make it lighthearted. This is probably one of my favourite Clooney performances, he's sly and cool and makes people like him when we should despise such a character. The film is enjoyable and will be recognized come Oscar time. I expect to see the performances being rewarded with nominations and I hope to see Reitman get another one. As I said earlier, if his first three films give any indication as to what his future career will be like, then I'm going to be enjoying all of his films.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

2009 A Year In Review

The year is over and what seemed to be another lackluster year of cinema ended with a bang. When I look back at 2009, I'll remember it as the year that Watchmen finally made it to the big screen after so many failed attempts, the year that James Cameron returned to the screen and the year that Michael Bay and Twilight sh*t all over us.

I'll start off with the WORST films I've seen this year. This films actually made my head hurt from the awfulness. Of course, if there is a really trashy film that is not on this list, I probably had the good mind of avoiding it.

Top Ten Worst Films Of The Year

10. The Last House On The Left
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/the-last-house-on-the-left-poster.png

I've never seen the original, but this film was uninspired and boring. I never felt any connection to the lead actress, her friend or the parents. The villains were one note and the deaths are ruined from the trailer. The subject matter was heavy, but I think the filmmakers still played it safe with this one. It doesn't push any envelopes when it could and should have.

9. SAW VI

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/saw_vi-1.jpg

I've said this is one of the better SAW films, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good film. It has horribly fake deaths that are just as elaborate as the last one. An uninteresting lead character who has to go through the traps and again a poor substitute for jigsaw himself. It doesn't end the series, as it promised and should have either.

8. G-Force

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/6a00d8341cc21a53ef0115713ce66497-1.jpg

I saw this one in 3D and wasn't impressed. It didn't add to the film at all. Aside from that, this film is not funny and will not please kids. The children in my theatre did not laugh and seemed bored. It plays more like an action film and turns into a transformers clone near the end. Nic Cage, who is really good in this film doesn't save it from it's unfunny shell.

7. Bruno

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/u4kztp0qwptveloh3w-1.jpg

Did this film really need to exist? I enjoyed Borat for it's pushing of limitations and comment on society but Bruno comes off as as poor imitator. It takes 'envelope pushing' to the limits, which I guess is what they had it mind, but whatever story and comedy they intended for it is lost in the process. Bruno is not likable and the film instead of following Borat becomes a Jackass style film. One weird sexual awkward stunt after another.

6. My Bloody Valentine

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/my_bloody_valentine_3d_ver2-1.jpg

Another horror remake that makes the list and another one in which I have not seen the original. This remake sells itself on the fact that it's in 3D, which means we will have a lot of "stabbing the audience" moments...and we do. Watching this, not in 3D, it's horribly obvious which moments were meant for the 3D audience. That aside, the film is poorly acted from a cast that belong on Dawson's Creak (wait, one was on that show) and the writing is stuff that monkeys can do. If the ending wasn't obvious in the one scene where the killer confronts one character in the mine shaft, then the obvious red herrings are. Props for having one character run around completely naked for 3 minutes.

5. Night at the Museum 2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/night-at-the-museum-2-battle-of--1.jpg

I actually like the first one, I found it to be entertaining. I can't say the same for this CGI infested crap fest. The film is an excuse to throw CGI effects around the screen. Ben Stiller is not funny and plays it straight. Robin Williams is hardly in the film, heck anyone from the first one if hardly in the film. Every character gets side stepped for the sake of the effects, which are not that great to begin with. Amy Adams is good and beautiful, but she can't save this train wreck, one that uses the exact same gags from the first film and has so many questionable moments in it that you will hurt yourself thinking about them. How there are no night guards or that anyone doesn't even notice any of this is beyond me.

4. Jennifer's Body

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/jennifers_body_ver2-1.jpg

Another sad excuse for a movie, this time it's sex. Jennifer's Body had a lot going for it. Megan Fox is the new sex symbol, Diablo Cody is hot off her Oscar and it's about time we have another horror comedy. All three fail. Megan Fox is hot for a few moments, then her horrible acting and annoying whining get on your nerves. The writing is pretty obvious Juno retread and the story goes in a completely different direction then what I at least had hoped for. Finally the film can't balance the horror or the comedy and it becomes neither horrific or funny.

3. He's Just Not That Into You

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Hes_just_not_that_into_you-1.jpg

For a film with such a big cast you'd think someone would have read the script. Was everyone just looking for a paycheck? The situations these people are in are vomit inducing and the themes this film try to spew is ridiculous. It tells women one thing and guys another. Not to mention that none of the relationships seem real or even try to act genuine.

2. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/transformers2_1-1.jpg

Two words that pop into my head when I think about this film is loud and obnoxious. While the special effects are good, the rest of the film falls flat on it's face. If people complained about not knowing which transformer was who in the first film, good luck even knowing what's happening on the screen this time. Megan Fox looks fake and acts like a plant. The useless additions of two racist autobots was unneeded and added more time to a film that was already 30 minutes too long. One character has to ask another what the plot of the film is. Such a step down from the good and entertaining first entry.

1. Halloween II

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/halloween-2-final-p-1.jpg

Rob Zombie looked like he had some promise as a director. After a failed attempt at reviving the genre with his throwback to the 80's House of 1,000 Corpses, he hits us with his best film, Devil's Rejects, then actually does an alright job remaking Halloween. Then he got lost, really lost. Halloween II comes off as a first time amateur director coming from either film school or making music videos. Zombie is better than this, but for some reason he thinks that rapid fire editing that make you lose any frame of geographical reference possible is good. He thinks that sending Myers on a trek across the globe is a good idea and never bothers to mention how he survived a gun shot to the face. Or that it's okay for the lead character to have nightmare after nightmare and have one that lasts way too long that the audience knows it's a nightmare before it's revealed. This film is trash's trash. Don't even get me started on a white horse or how ghosts are holding down people for Myers to kill. I could go on and on about the unoriginal kills and lack of any sense of horror and thrills, but I won't.


One of the worst films of the year I actually liked:

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra

Sure it's lead actors are more wooden then....something made of wood, but strip the G.I. Joe title away and you have yourself an exciting popcorn action film that is over the top and fun.


Top Ten of 2009 coming soon....

[Iroquois]

I do love a good "bad movies" list - I don't think I've seen ten genuinely bad movies this year, just very mediocre ones. Funnily enough, 2009 was the year where I got to see the original Last House on the Left and My Bloody Valentine - both were relatively enjoyable pieces of low-grade slasher fare. I keep thinking I'll end up watching the remakes but I haven't bothered yet (and probably never will).

And I actually kind of liked Bruno. It's stupid and a pale imitation of Borat, but it had a few funny moments.

One last thing - Jennifer's Body was supposed to come out here sometime last month but distributors actually decided to cancel the theatrical release mere days away from it actually happening. Make of that what you will.