Suspect's Reviews

[TheUsualSuspect]

Trying this to see what happens, here is where you can find all my reviews. Good or bad ;)

Review List:


PAGE 1

Dead-Alive 4
Dark city 5
Lord of The Rings: Return of the King 5
Land of the Dead 3
War of the Worlds (2005) 2.5
Million Dollar Baby 3.5
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory 4
Sideways 4.5
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 5
Cherry Falls 1
Dog Soldiers 4.5
2001: A space Odyssey 3
Memento 5
Ginger Snaps: Unleashed 2.5
The Aviator 4.5
Maria Full of Grace 3.5
Identity 4

Page 2

Star Wars: Revenge of The Sith 4
Mr. In-Between 2.5
Starship Troopers 2 0.5
Campfire Stories 0.5
Primal Fear 3.5
Primer 3.5
Face/Off 3.5
Pulp Fiction 5
The Matrix Reloaded 4
Broken Flowers 3.5

Page 3

Gangster No.1 3
Battle Royale 4.5
Transporter 2 3
Oldboy 4.5

Page 4

Cannibal Holocaust 3
28 Days Later 2.5
Evil Dead II 5
Blade Trinity 2
Layer Cake 4
Bubba Ho-Tep 4
Dead & Breakfast 3.5
Freddy VS Jason 2.5
Jeepers Creepers 2 2
Inside deep Throat 3

Page 5

Corpse Bride 3.5
Spider-Man 2 4.5
Batman Begins 4
Mindhunters 2.5
ENVY0

Page 6

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy 3
House of Wax 2
Undead 3
Chicken Little 2.5
Man With The Screaming Brain 2
Rollerball 0
Bad Taste 4
Darkness Falls 0


Page 7

The Devil's Rejects 4
Jarhead 4
SAW II 2
Crash (2004) 4
Naked Lunch 3
House of the Dead 0
Alone in the Dark 0

Page 8

Sky High 3
Seven Samurai 5
Bewitched 1.5
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events 3
American Pie Presents: Band Camp 1
The Family Stone 3.5
The 40 Year Old Virgin 4
Cry_Wolf 2
Serenity 4.5
Lord of War 4

Page 9

Munich 4
Izô: Kaosu mataha fujôri no kijin 2
The Brother's Grimm 2
Suspiria 3
Capote 3.5
Batman & Robin 1
Ghost Ship 0.5
Red Eye 3

Page 10

DOOM 2
Good Night & Good Luck 4
Three...Extremes 3
Waiting... 3
Christmas With The Kranks 0.5
Hoodwinked 3
Eight Below 3
Failure To Launch 2
The Ice Harvest 1.5
Inside Man 3.5

Page 11

King Kong (2005) 4
Sin City 4.5
2001 Maniacs 2.5
Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe 2.5
Thank You For Smoking 4.5
Silent Hill 3.5
Twelve Monkeys 4.5
Army Of Darkness 5

Page 12

Mission Impossible III 3
The Da Vinci Code 3
Fun With Dick & Jane 2
Shooting Gallery 0.5
Rushmore 3
Unleashed 3
Basket Case 2
Carnivore 0
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada 3.5
Kicking & Screaming 1

Page 13

X-Men: The Last Stand 2
Superman Returns 3.5
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 3
Ultraviolet 0.5
Clerks II 3.5
Snakes On A Plane 3.5

Page 14

The Cabinet of Dr, Caligari 4
Scary Movie 4 1
City of Rott 1
Over The Hedge 3
Grandma's Boy 2.5
Crank 2.5
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1
The Departed 4.5
The Grudge 2 0.5
Flags of our Fathers 2.5

Page 15

SAW III 3
Night of the Living Dead 3-D 0.5
Aeon Flux 1.5
Borat 3
Belly 0
Wolf Creek 3
Click 2
The Break-Up 1.5
United 93 4.5
Casino Royale 4.5
Rocky Balboa 3
Smokin' Aces 3.5
Letters From Iwo Jima 4.5
Half Nelson 4

Page 16

300 4.5
You Me & Dupree 1.5
Grindhouse 5
Hot Fuzz 4
Spider-Men 3 3.5
1408 4
SiCko 4
Live free or Die Hard 4

Page 17

The Simpsons Movie 4
Hostel 1.5

Page 18

Cannibal Ferox 1.5
Superbad 4
Story of Ricky 2.5
Halloween 3.5
Shoot Em Up 3
SAW IV 2.5
We Own The Night 3.5
Across The Universe 3
No Country For Old Men 4.5
Juno 4.5

Page 19

I Am Legend 3
The Bucket List 2.5
Death Sentence 2.5
Cloverfield 4

Page 20

There Will Be Blood 4.5
Good Luck Chuck 1
Ryan 4.5
Jumper 2
Vantage Point 2.5
The Nines 3.5
Iron Man 4
Speed Racer 2
Southland Tales 1.5
Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull 3.5

Page 21

The Mist 3
The Happening 1.5
The Incredible Hulk 2.5
WALL-E 4.5
The Dark Kight 4.5
Doomsday 3.5
Be Kind Rewind 3.5

Page 22

Tropic Thunder 3.5
Burn After Reading 3
Ghost Town 3
SAW V 2
Changeling 4
Quantum Of Solace 3
Yes Man 3

Page 23

Gran Torino 4
The Wrestler 4
Slumdog Millionaire 4
Watchmen 4
Wolverine Origins 3
Star Trek 4
Terminator Salvation 3


Page 24


UP 4.5
The Hangover4
Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen2.5
G-Force3
The Hurt Locker4
A Perfect Getaway3
District 94.5
Inglorious Basterds4
Halloween II1.5

Page 25

Life During Wartime3.5
The Invention of Lying2.5
Where The Wild Things Are4
Saw VI3
Paranormal Activity4
GI Joe3.5
Fantastic Mr. Fox4
Nine3
Avatar4
Up In The Air4


Page 26

Push2
The Book of Eli3.5
Premium Rush2.5
The Purge2
Bad Words3
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes4.5


Page 27

Expendables 3 3.5
Predestination 3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

DEAD-ALIVE (Peter Jackson)



"Tounge in Cheek Horror"

Wow, what a film from Peter Jackson, the guy that went on to do LOTR. If you are a gore lover, this is "the" ultimate film to check out.

Here is a movie that has comedy, zombies, blood, guts and lots of it...did I forget to mention a lawnmower. Which is one of the bloodiest scenes ever filmed, more or less on par with Kill Bill's House of Blue Leaves.

I was hooked right from the beginning of this film when the two men climbed down in the rocks of the Island. BUT when looking for this film, make sure you get the UN-cut version, because the R rated version literally cuts everything up to pieces, this is a classic gore fest that should not be missed from any horror movie fan.

It's one of those low-budget B horror movies, where you would expect there to be bad acting, which it has, bad special effects, which not exactly right, because for this film, the special effects were astounding. Three scenes in this film stand out in my mind, one is the opening, because you do not know what you're in for until you see the guy get hacked to bits!!!!

Second would be the baby in the park scene, that goes down as one of the funniest scenes that I've ever seen. Of course the last one is a given, the lawnmower plowing through the zombies!!!!!

Watch this movie and you will not be disappointed, with a house full of zombies and 3 people fighting to survive, limbs will falls, heads will fly and rib cages will be ripped out!!!

8.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Dark City (Alex Proyas)

http://www.fantascienza.com/cinema/dark-city/media/07.JPG

"Underrated Brilliant Film"

Dark City is all about a man who has incredible powers but doesn't realise it. Everyone is under the control of mysterious 'strangers' who are injecting them with false memories/altering their reality. This man (Rufus Sewell) finally confronts these men in a battle for the city.

This is one of those films that inspires you to learn more about sci/fi. The whole movie is cold, dark and it never lights up for a minute. This movie is an underrated brilliant sci-fi film and it bares a resemblance to 'The Matrix', but was made before it, so there is no denying that Dark City must have been an inspiration for The Matrix.

The story is complex but develops itself as a drawn tight yet frequently entertaining thriller. It is thought provoking, which is a lesser thing you'll find in films today.

The performances are all very good, specially the three lead men. Rufus Sewell is plays the confused lead, William Hurt plays the film noir detective and Kiefer Sutherland is the quirky side switching doctor. Don't forget Jennifer Connellywho plays the role with great expertise. Alex Proyas much like The Crow has created this gothic world where the sun never rises and inhabitants live in darkness. The sets and costumes are beautiful. The acting is top-of-the-line, with Sewell in the lead part. Everyone does a great job.

The villians in this film, THE STRANGERS, are creepy and will send chills down your spine everytime you see them in their long black coats and hat. The costumes for them are perfect and could not have been done better, they live in the world underground and you see the different lifestyles between them and the people they control, yet live above them.

The thing that amazed me the most would be the cross between the 1950 to 1980's, it was brilliant, the set pieces were perfect for this film. Everytime I saw the buildings changing, I was in amazement. Everyone that took part in this film should be praised, this is a film that should get more attention from the general public, but is overshadowed by films that like to put more action then story in it's plot.

10/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

(Peter Jackson)

http://returnoftheking.cowebz.com/return%20king%20picture%20gallery.jpg

"Cinematic Brilliance"

My friend asked me if I wanted to go, I said okay, but he didn't want to leave until 7:30. Of course I knew we would get bad seats, and we did. 3rd row from the very front, far, far left. My neck still hurts. I had nothing to eat or drink, people were talking throughout the opening scenes. Yet this did nothing to distract me or harm the movie in any way.

Let me start off by saying and you can quote me on this "Move over Star Wars, there's a new trilogy in cinema" This movie (movies) are amazing. Lord of the Rings is the best trilogy out there and will be for some time. The matrix's last installment full flat, I have not seen Godfather, Evil Dead is a cult classic trilogy and Star Wars just lost the top spot. I seriously believe Jackson will get Best Director and this movie "deserves" to have Best Picture, even though the Academy will **** it's chances over and this will be one of the biggest snubs ever on the Oscars.

I'll begin with the CGI. If you thought the first two had great CGI, you haven't seen anything yet. Gollum, of course looks amazing and it is so believable that he is a character on the screen. "He is there, you believe it, he is not cgi" The way he talked to himself was better than the way it was presented in The Two Towers, the water reflection was so beautiful and imaginative. When he is atop of Frodo and bites his finger off, it was amazing; I was actually in awe, CGI on top of CGI. The battle, what an amazing battle, if you thought the battle at Helm's Deep was amazing, cool, the best, then you are in store for something spectacular. You will get your socks knocked off.

The battle scene is the absolute best battle scene ever created. The bodies, the emotion, the action, the excitement, the chills, the suspense, the cheers, the tears. This battle had it all. The men who were cursed, beautiful, how they tore that mother****er down. In Fellowship of the Ring, we see Legolas climb atop of a Cave Troll; yes it did look fake, cheesy. In Two Towers, we see him do some weird stunt to climb back onto his horse, it also looked weird and fake. In Return Of The King, he takes down the elephant and all the men on it. This wasn't fake, this wasn't weird or cheesy. It looked beautiful, it looked real, it was amazing. He did it with ease as well, and as he counted his victims, brings down the big boy, gimli (serving as comic relief only) still states that the one only counted as one.

The acting, was utterly "uber" great. Aragorn IS the king, he is the man, the legend, Mortesen is the one and only person who can play him, who can bring him to life, he is Aragorn. Everyone did their part, and boy did I ever hate the "filler king" He p*ssed me off so much, I actually liked it. Merry and Pippen, were extraordinary, this movie is where they shine. Sam, I think everyone knows what a great actor Astin is, and what a GREAT job he did with Sam, I honestly believe that he should be up for supporting actor. He almost made me cry, the emotion was utterly amazing. Hate, Anger, Love, Fear, Sadness. He brought all of these emotions into this character and he did it extremely well. Frodo...what can I say, you are a troubled young...err..old hobbit. You are tired, you cannot go on...you trust the untrustworthy, you are fearful of a giant Shelob. You have courage and find the strength to go on and destroy the ring, only to be consumed by it's evil power, and want the ring for yourself. Agent Smith/Lord Elrond...one word, GREAT. I believed Liv Tyler should of had at least 5 more minutes of screen time, but with the time she did have, she made me believe that she truly was in love with Aragon and willing to become mortal.

The direction, Peter Jackson is my new Favourite director. Yes, I have seen his previous films before he did Lord of the Rings, yes I loved them, but this "EPIC" trilogy, has made him the man. Only a true fan of Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, could of brought this masterpiece to film, creating another masterpiece. You honestly deserve to win best director, for conveying epic battle sequences, strong emotions, bringing something fake to life (Gollum). I don't know anyone else who could of done this, and if he is not behind the camera for The Hobbit, then it should not be made.

The characters, one of the things that I love about the books/movies are the characters. Their fears, their anger, their courage, their optismistic approach on life. Eowyn (sp) Not very convincing in Two Towers, but amazing in this installment, I could not believe it. She is a warrior. Everyone cheered when she took off her helmet and said "I am no man". Then stuck that sword right into the f***er. Merry and Pippen have love for each other and you can feel it, when they say goodbye to each other, you can feel their pain, there sadness. Gimli, was really funny as well as Gandalf, who is just as always, excellently portrayed by Ian Mckellen. Everyone cheered again when Gandalf took over command of Minus Tirith (sp).

The movie itself, was just brilliant. It deserves everything it gets, and should get more. I felt sad when Frodo was back at the Shire, in his little home all alone, a huge adventure had just happened, how can you go back to your normal life? You made courages friendships, with man, drawf and elf. Now you're back with hobbits, I saw their expressions in the pub, just before Sam got married (yeah all the girls cheered) I know how they feel.

The adventure was EPIC, the adventure was Amazing, it's sad to watch the movies all in a row, I know I will cry when I do (not only because my ass will hurt from 9-13 hours either. My uncle asked me a year ago, what movie has changed my life, what movie made me look at movies in a different way. I didn't know the answer yet, he told me for him it was Star Wars, his whole generation loves Star Wars. Well, there is a new generation.

Lord of the Rings has and will change the way we look at movies today. It has a new following (yeah, someone dressed up as a hobbit). I will have these films on DVD, Extended Edition. a friend today asked me four questions. Was it good? YES. Good enough for Best Picture? Yes. Good enough for Best Director? Yes. Where did you sit? In a bad spot.

10/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Land of the Dead (George A Romero)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/george_a__romero_s_land_of_the_dead/_group_photos/asia_argento1.jpg

"Zombie Movie From the Legend"

Here is a classic zombie movie, where gore is back in the high seat. I Really liked this movie, not as good as Dawn or Night, but a big improvement over Day.

I dug J.L.'s character and basically....no one else. Everyone in this movie I felt was flat, even Dennis Hopper who should have been a delight.The movie felt really short, it could have been a little bit longer, but that is not a complaint.

My two main problems with this film were the characters (with J.L. as an exception) and their learning ability.

There is one zombie a big black man who doesn't just grrr...or moans like other zombie's, but he screams. They do learn, it's just like Day of the Dead, you'll see zombie's shooting people with guns and using gasoline to blow things up. One character says "They're trying to be like us, like they use to be. They are trying to live again". I found that to be a bit annoying. Another little thing I noticed it the "main" zombie was in the front line but was never shot, it was always the zombies around him that died, I found that to be far fetched.

What did I like about it, the whole idea that they live in a new world that they built and they try to live in it, even with zombies everywhere. What's the very first thing you see? A Zombie...none of this how did it happen or character introduction, you get zombies from the beginning. There is a lot of blood, yes there is a lot of CGI blood, which was distracting in a Romero film, but there were at least two very neat deaths that I liked, mostly the throat ripping out through the mouth.

I'd say it's a better zombie edition then the ones as of late. Thumbs up Romero, you still have it in ya.

Yes, I saw Savini and the two from Shaun of the dead. Which was great because my friend and myself were the only ones in the theater who cheered for them.

7/10

[LordSlaytan]

Why don't you cut and paste all the reviews you already posted into here. You don't have to, because I already listed 'em as reviews, so they're there in your profile. But having them all together never hurts.

EDIT: I just peeked after I added these, but they're not there. I'll ask Yoda why and get back to you.

[TheUsualSuspect]

War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg)

http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/article/587/587139/war-of-the-worlds-20050211033409689-000.jpg

"Lacks everything, except special effects"

This is a movie where plot holes run wild....yes there are tons of them. But the ones that can't go unmentioned are the scene where the plane has crashed outside the wife's house, amid all this rubble, cruise's car is fine, and there's a neat little path right down the street through the destruction so they can drive away. Of course all the electronic crap.

The special effects are spectacular. This of course is expected with this type of film, being a Spielberg/blockbuster film. Every turn in the movie there is a tripod alien destroying a part of the city and people being vapourized. This is the highlight of this film because the plot lacks, the characterization lacks and the directing is below average for Spielberg.

Anybody want to slap not only Tom's character in the face....but every other character??? Not one sympathetic human character in the entire film. Tom is an *******, Dakota is crying all the time which made her extremely annoying, the son is a whiny bitch, Tim Robbins is an insane annoying useless character. Tim Robbins does nothing but distracts, he serves no point but to chew up screen time and make us think Tom will do anything for the life of his kid, but this comes across of jokey when they close the door and "fight" Robbie should have died---it was a cheap move to have him show up in the end after saying he had to see the fight over the hill. Whenever this happens in the movie, it brings it down(Jurassic Park III.) Is it just me or does every Spielberg flick have to end in the happy we're okay ending in all of his movies.

The pacing's horrible, it just suddenly ends, WAY TOO ABRUPT. The aliens catch colds and die. Film over. And most surprisingly in a Spielberg flick, there's no emotional clout here. There is no climax....that's because the whole movie is just destruction after destruction, if your into that kind of thing, then this movie is for you. But the best scene in this movie is not the destruction of the cities, but the basement scene involving the pointless character of Tim Robbins. Even though the scene is laughable at parts, it still holds up as suspenseful.

The motivation of the aliens are difficult to follow, at first, when they want to rid the earth of mankind, They content themselves with firing death rays, at individual fleeing humans, the most inefficient method of extermination. Why didn't they just use gas, it would be more efficient and alot faster. Then, midway through, suggest that, for no particular reason, the aliens are harvesting the humans to make those red vines things out of their blood.

I felt cheated at the end of the film. The world was left in sh*t, everything was destroyed, covered in the blood vine things and we go to Boston where everything is fine...no houses destroyed, family all nice and neat and of course the happy Spielberg ending. This film was a huge disappointment, Spielbergs worst movie since A.I.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Million Dollar Baby (Clint Eastwood)

http://www.filmfodder.com/movies/reviews/million_dollar_baby/images/million_dollar_baby.jpg

"Good film, not as great as they say"

In the wake of a painful estrangement from his daughter, boxing trainer Frankie Dunn has been unwilling to let himself get close to anyone for a very long time, then Maggie Fitzgerald walks into his gym. More than anything, she wants someone to believe in her. The last thing Frankie needs is that kind of responsibility, let alone that kind of risk, but won over by Maggie's sheer determination, he agrees to take her on. In turns exasperating and inspiring each other, the two come to discover that they share a common spirit that transcends the pain and loss of their pasts, and they find in each other a sense of family they lost long ago. Yet, they both face a battle that will demand more heart and courage than any they've ever known.

So what is all this talk about Million Dollar Baby about? Well it is a good film, mostly directing. Clint I believe has himself another Oscar (Sorry Marty). The film does indeed look and feel real, which is a good relief from the recent Big Budget Fantasy films. Clint handles the characters extremely well and gives them each their moment in the sun.The gritty old feel of this film is perfect for it's style and the theme of boxing.

Everyone gives great performances, unfortunately, Swank, doesn't deliver on the level of expectancy. Don't get me wrong, she does a very well job of giving the character emotion and depth and you feel for this girl, but it seems like we've seen it before and it becomes clichéd.

The script was well written, the film actually becomes something of it's own in the third act, which is the best part of the film. Morgan Freeman and Clint both deliver great performances which saved the film from being another random "Oscar" movie, is this Clint's best? NO Is it this years best? No, Is it going to Win an Oscar? Yes, because it's the Oscars...

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
(Tim Burton)

http://www.gawker.com/news/depp1.jpg


"Weirdest Film of 2005"

First of all, let me say that this film is nothing like the original, there were so many things that were not in this film that were in the original, which made the film seem very short. Through out the whole film you know what is going to happen and when you don't see it you kind of feel let down, but then the film goes on after the ending of the original and you get new material on the screen.

This film has BURTONS style written all over it, the opening score, the Buckette's house, evening the references to his other films are in here. (Peewee, Edward). It's always a treat to see a Burton film because his sense of style is always "twisted" and unique.

The music other then Elfman's score was sung by the Oompa Loompas and they were short and only happened after a child was disposed of. Of course it was funny to see that little guy sing and do the little dances, but I still say that the original Oompa Loompas were great and should never have changed. I never read the book, but in the movie it shows the back story to the Oompa Loompas, living in some kind of jungle, it was neat to see that.

In saying that, this film, unlike the original which centered on Charlie, deals more with Wonka. Going to the jungle or Loompa Island and finding the Oompa Loompas, hell even going as far back as to show Willy as a child and his father the great Mr. Lee, or as someone said in the audience. "Holy Sh*t, it's Dooku". As stated before this film is full of references to other movies and one is 2001: AOS, in the TV room (the big white room) it has 2001 on the screen and I know that I was the only one in that theater that knew what it was.

So Depp as Wonka eh, well this is the part that scares me, he was freaky. Not like the original Wonka at all. He sounds like a child, looks pale and acts like a child. Depp was quoted as saying that the inspiration was a game show host locked up for 20 years and then finally let out and I believe it. He was great, had the right funny/scary/weird sense and look to him. Of course Wonka and Depps performance is the most weird part of this film, that doesn't take apart from the fact that the film itself is weird, it goes up there with any Lynch or Cronenberg film as being F'd up. Not in an I don't understand way, in a this is F'd up way.

Which film do I prefer, hard to say cause the original is a classic and I never read the book, but as good as the film is there were some parts that I could of done without. Mainly one being Burton showing the other children leaving the factory. Agustus is covered in Chocolate, Violette is still blue, and I won't tell you about the other two, but what I liked about the original is that you never knew what happened to them, if those Oompa Loompas really did take care of those kids or if there were something darker going on in that factory. All in all, the kids did the job of acting like kids and the parents did the job of acting like parents, so nothing special there.

Depp's performance, the sets, comparing to the original and Burton behind the camera are the reasons to see this film, but if you loved a lot of things about the original....like Slugsworth, the floating/burping, Wonkas office, then you'll end up being disappointed because they are not present in Burtons film.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Sideways (Alexander Payne)

http://blogs.indiewire.com/awards/archives/images/sideways-thumb.jpg


"Oscar Bound?"

For people to say you have to be around 30 or so to enjoy this brilliant film....you're wrong, I'm 16 and absolutely loved it.

Paul Giamatti robbed again. This performance is one of the best all year (How the hell Clint got in over Paul, I will never know). Here is a performance so touching and yet hysterical at the same time that you can't help but love the guy. You feel his sadness, you feel his love, you feel his laughter and of course you feel his drunkenness.

My favourite scene in this film was when Miles finds out that his ex-wife is pregnant. The hurt on Giamatti's face is perfectly executed, and yet he also feels a closure and tries to show that he is also happy for her, which he is, all these emotions were portrayed perfectly. Thomas Haden Church was great, the character was an *******, but hey, I still liked him, Church gives the character a human quality that you can't dismiss and for some you will attach to him, for others, you will hate him, but in the end, you know that the performance is worthy of a nomination.

Virginia Madson and Sarah Oh, both give great supporting roles and are the glue to make the film stick together, without them the film would have been missing a lot of emotion on the other end of the spectrum (meaning we get a lot from giamatti, but here are some others).

The script was very clever and human. You don't know what is going to happen next because we as humans are unpredictable, so their actions are unpredictable. I honestly did not think this film was going to be funny, I walked into the theatre thinking it was a drama and walked out laughing my ass off. There are too many funny scenes (involving dialouge) to name, but my favs include: "I am not drinking any f*cking Merlot"

The direction here is perfect, who better to get to direct a movie then the writer, who can handle the characters perfectly and guide the actors into the right direction. Unlike other writers who can't direct if their life depended on it...I'm talking to you David S. Goyer. I love the ending, it is so ANTI-Hollywood, (just like Eternal Sunshine and hell even The Aviator for that matter).

We need more films like these, instead of films with talking animals and crappy sequels (Do we need a mask 2). We need movies that we can connect with, we need characters that we can relate to, films that will touch our hearts and make us feel every emotion that one can have in 2 hours or so.

The film is my 3rd favourite film of 2004. Eternal sunshine and Kill Bill Vol 2 taking the first two spots, but I'm excited to see what Payne can show us in the future and as always, I'm looking forward to one of Giamatti's next films, he is quickly becoming one of my favourite actors.

9/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Eternal Sunshine of the spotless Mind
(Michel Gondry)

http://www.mythfolklore.net/mywiki/images/sunshine.gif

"Best film of 2004"

Joel (Jim Carrey) is a rather milquetoast man who meets up with free spirit Clementine (Kate Winslet), and they become romantically involved. However, they endure a messy breakup and Clementine goes to a business called Lacuna, Inc., where she has all of her memories of Joel erased. Not wanting to be left out, Joel also goes to have his memory erased. However, soon after it begins, Joel realizes that he wants to keep the memory of Clementine, so he tries to reverse the process.

Well, if you're familiar with Kaufman's work, then you know what your getting yourself into. This is just as weird if not weirder then his previous work (maybe even John Malkovich). Anyways, I knew what I was getting myself into, but 90% of the movie I was saying to myself "What the f*ck", but in a good way. It opens with Joel calling in sick for work and going on a different train and meeting Clementine, they hit it off, now this is about 15 minutes into the movie, then out of nowhere come the credits for the opening. I will admit, I thought it would be different, but I'm glad that it is the way it is, the movie is 80% of the time in Joel's head.

If you think you know Carrey, think again. This movie is his best performance, better than Majestic, Truman show and all of his comedic roles (which is what I love him for). Just looking at his face from the second we see him, we feel his pain, then like that, we feel his joy, embarrassment, hate. Just amazing acting on his part, and Winslet was great as well with her warm heart, and sky high spirit throughout the film, she is the perfect counter-weight to Joel.. Everybody, Wood, Dunsts, and so on, just add to the emotion on the screen. I can see at least one Oscar nomination for acting(hope).

But if I were to bet any money on any Oscar nominations it would obviously be the writing, what a mess, but beautifully constructed. You think to yourself, is that scene really necessary but everything is so out of it, that you think later on that it does, that's beautiful, crazy, give me whatever he's smoking kind of writing. Charlie Kaufman's writing is always clever, but this time he's one-upped himself by making something not only bizarre, but emotionally engaging. It seemed like his earlier movies were clever for the sake of cleverness, but 'Eternal Sunshine' manages to dazzle you with it's originality and it's poignancy. The fact that this movie was able to wrap such profound loss, emotional tenderness, and hope in such a self-consciously stylized package illustrates the incredible talent of the people behind it.

Michel Gondry's use of colours and quick camera movement give the film a very involving first hand feeling. The constant use of the handy cam is very all involving for the viewer, and I suppose that this is exactly what is needed in such a personal movie. His work on the dream sequences is incredible as well.

One fault with it, would have to be the last minute of the film, the fade to white and the same scene playing over and over did nothing for the film, except take away from it.

9.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Cherry Falls (Geoffrey Wright)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/usa_films/cherry_falls/jay_mohr/cherryfalls.jpg


"MPAA screwed this film"

A killer is killing off the virgins of a small town Cherry Falls. Sounds like your typical teen slasher movie, but with a lot of horror fans saying they liked it, I gave it a try. CHERRY FALLS is a major disappointment. Mainly due to extreme editing. Then again, the script didn't help this movie either.

CHERRY FALLS lacks almost everything in terms of a teen slasher these days. The deaths are all editted to nothing, which hurts this film beyond everything, in horror movies the deaths scenes are what makes it good or bad, with Cherry Falls lacking in this department, you can bet your ass that it will not make up for, and unfortunately it doesn't. It takes notes from Psycho, by making the ending a similar twist, but unlike Psycho where it schocks and made people talk about how great it was, here it did not shock and most certainly did not make people start talking about it, other then negativity.

The idea of a killer killing off virgins is a neat thing to do, and of course the people in the town have a secret they want to keep from their kids, but one of these kids investigate and finds out who this "girl" is and why she is doing these things. Have we seen this before?

I can't stress how bad the terrible editing is, it seriously distracts the viewer from any enjoyment they may get out of this film. The director and editor should have taken more care of this film, even with the pressure from the MPAA. In horror movies it's cliche to have nudity in them, and when the last part of the movie involves a huge orgy so no one will die, you'd expect a tit popping out here and there, but again, nothing. It sad when you don't see the deaths, it's even sadder when you can't even see the dead body after the fact, and with no nudity to hold off those horror fans, what left is there?

This movie had a good idea, but with a terrible script and a not knowing what to do with anything director. You need these two things to be good in order to have any direction for the actors in the film, other wise why should we even care? Then again some people just can't act. The only movie I ever liked with Jay Morh in it was Suicide Kings. No wonder he is the host of last comic standing. Yes, even the acting in this movie is laughable. Not laughable in a good way either, it takes itself serious at some points, then at others throws that whole concept out the window.

In the end, this is a copy-cat movie of scream, much like every other horror teen slasher out there, but when every teen slasher movie is out there you need something in the film to make it different from the others, what does this film have to offer, other then a bad viewing expierence?

3/10

[LordSlaytan]

War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg)

6/10Oh, crap. Here we go again. ;)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Dog Soldiers (Neil Marshall)

http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/content/images/kritiken-filmbilder/dog-soldiers/dog-soldiers-2.jpg


"One of the best werewolf films to date"

Dog soldiers opens in Scotland, where two campers are attacked by an unknown creature from the woods, but judging from the title, you'd guess it was a werewolf. So we move ahead and we see soldiers that are left in woods as part of some kind of training. Lead by Sergeant Wells (Sean Pertwee) and motivated by Private Cooper (Kevin McKidd), the squad is surprised when they see a mutilated cow that is thrust into their campsite. Following the bloody trail of the animal, they are soon led to the massacred remains of the elite Special Forces team that was stationed in the same woods. There were no bodies, but obvisouly a struggle, no one was there except one survivor, Captain Ryan (Liam Cunningham) who was injured during the night.

Here is a movie that takes it cues from many classic movies, such as The Evil Dead, An American Werewolf in London and Aliens. Soldiers stuck in a cabin in the woods, with the werewolf predators lurking outside, it's blood and bullets for the rest of the night as they try to survive till morning.

This is Neil Marshall's first flick and I'm surprised at the quality of what he has brought to the table, he has blended a mis of horror/comedy/action in one tight little neat werewolf flick, which in my opinion is one of the best to this date.

While watching the flick, you know that they are not too serious once a soldier has a bare-knuckle fight with one of the werewolfs. Pertwee, one of the main characters, spends much of the film trying to hold in his own guts, which mark an uncanny resemblance to jello. Can't forget that they tape them back in.

Here is a little flick that makes you bite down on your nails and keeps you to the very edge of your seat, not many horror films can do that, hell not many films in general can do that. Not only does this film do that perfectly but it makes you want more, and when it's over you can't help but feel a little saddened by this, but then again there is a sequel in the works.

8.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

http://www.ghsteched.com/dave5.gif

"Fantastic ART film, medicore film"

So, I finally saw this weird film and I still don't know what to think of it. I'm not sure if I liked it or not. One of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. It's visionarly brilliant, but......nothing happens. It's hard to explain, but something about this movie I didn't like. There is VERY little story, and whats there is not that interesting. Its an art flick, and a big leap in sci-fi films at the time.

HAL 900 was of course great and probably the highlight of this film with it's cold horrorific voice, send chills down anybody's spine. The ending is obscure, but with repeat viewings, is comprehendable.

I understand that it was not meant to be understood as a whole and for that fact it succeeds, but as a film it fails.

Very difficult to rate this film, because as an art film it warrants a 10/10, but as a film for entertainment value I see myself giving it a 4/10.

6.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Memento (Christopher Nolan)


"Landmark in Cinema"


Here is one of those movies that need more then one viewing to comprehend, and in my case took 3 or 4. It's so unique and a giant leap from the Hollywood movies that are out there today, that you want to see it again and again not to just figure out the puzzles in the film, but to enjoy a great landmark film.

Leonard (Guy Pearce) is an insurance investigator whose memory has been damaged following a head injury he sustained after intervening on his wife's murder. His quality of life has been severely hampered after this event, and he can now only live a comprehend-able life by tattooing notes on himself and taking pictures of things with a Polaroid camera. Now he tries to find his wife's killer and end the madness of his life.

Through out the movie, as it is told backwards Leonard is lost as are we and this is where we get hooked, we are connected to the main character straight from the beginning. The people around him who claim to be his friends, do we trust them, should Leonard, he only has his notes and pictures to look at to know who to trust. From the beginning we meet Teddy and are told not to believe his lies, why is this? We want to know why we can't trust him, what has he done to make Leonard not trust him and trust Natalie.

Joe Pantoliano always chooses great films to be apart of and here he is with his matrix co-star Carrie Anne Moss, both give good performances, but it's Guy Pearce who runs the movie.

This is a movie that everyone should see at least once in their lifetime because it is so unique and visually stunning in it's chronological order. Once you know what's happening in the film, and see how each scene ends, you desperately want to know what happened before it. Christopher Nolan gives us great suspense in a way that no one has ever done. In every thriller we want to know what happens next, what happens at the end. Here, if you want to get technical, we want to know what happens at the beginning, how did he get his memory amnesia, did he really kill John .G already?

There lies another greatness of the film, it never really tells you if Teddy was lying or not, just because Leonard thinks he's a liar, he's made out to be one throughout the rest of the movie, and then our whole experience with him changes. Was he really telling the truth? Does Sammy Jenkins really exist or was it really Leonard, this my friend is up to you to decide.

10/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ginger Snaps: Unleashed (Brett Sullivan)

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/MichaelMackenzie/unleashed8.jpg

"Does it live up to the original?"


Tell me why it's called Ginger Snaps again, she already did, isn't it Brigitte's turn? This movie continues the story from the first one, so it helps if you've seen the original. Where does this movie go? Who knows, it doesn't keep in track very well with the whole werewolf thing till the last 15-20 minutes of the film. Ghost seems to be more of the main character than Brigitte is in this one, which is sad because her character is boring and inane. Ginger is hardly there and it seems like she is only there to get more people in the seats...damn eye candy. She serves no other function than narrator. Sad, because Katharine Isabelle is a good actress, but you wouldn't know it here. Brigitte's character has become smarter and stronger, as has Emily Perkins's acting.

It was never explained where the male werewolf came from that was trying to mate with Brigitte, though it was a neat idea, much like the link of a woman's cycle with werewolves in the first one. Was the male werewolf Jason? Was it Sam? We will never know...we are never given a back story of an idea if this virus is going to get out of hand, or if Brigitte and the male werewolf are the only ones in existence.

The story is interesting, but don't expect the character development and plot of the first one. Here, most of the characters beyond Ghost and Brigitte are 2-D, the girls in the institute are annoying and sexual playthings for Tyler, never going beyond that, Tyler himself is the typical scumbag aide who shoots girls up in exchange for sex (very unlike the character of Sam in the first one, who is a drug dealer, but has a very honorable smart side to him that comes out), Alice is a typical instructor who really doesn't do anything but serve as a plot device, coming in here and there, so Ghost won't be left alone. Even the male werewolf is just there, he is there to be killed. That's all.

You don't have the sympathy you have in the first one when, for instance, Sam is killed. You feel bad because you learn he is a good guy deep down and you feel like you know him by the end. I for one, loved the original Ginger Snaps because it was unconventional, the characters were deep, the violence only when needed, a whole neat idea about women's periods being linked to werewolves, two strong female leads and an ending that was scary and sad at the same time. Not too many films do that!

This movie, lacks emotion and trys to copy the same ending in emotion, but onyl half heartly gets there.

5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Aviator (Martin Scorsese)

http://www.parool.nl/film/2005/recensies/beeld/aviator-410.jpg


"Up there with the driver and the fellas?"

Fantastic. That's what The Aviator is. Yeah, it's a little long, but overall, fantastic. Leonardo DiCaprio gives the performance of his career in this, and Marty is excellent as always. He's paid his dues, I think it's time Academy voters. Yeah, it's not as good as many of his other films, but is still very excellent in its own right.

The music, the cinematography, and oh, the colours of it all. All excellent and visually grand. One of the best aspects of the film.

The acting was great also, of course DiCaprio. Cate Blanchett was alright, little on my nerves, Kate Beckinsale was very good with what little she had, and even the bit parts by Gwen Stefani, Jude Law and even random cameo by Willem Dafoe were all very well acted. I was disappointed with the lack of more for Ian Holm to do, but he still did very well.

Overall, a solid effort, and a great job from Scorsesel. Not the best film of the year, but deserving of recognition. One of Marty's best films, ranking up with the likes of Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. (Although, not better)

9/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Maria Full of Grace (Joshua Marston)

http://img.vip.lenta.ru/topic/oscar2005/grace.jpg

"Clever Visuals"


This is the harrowing story of a (not quite) typical mule: Maria Alvarez (Moreno), an intelligent and fiercely independent 17-year-old girl from Colombia who agrees to smuggle a half-kilo of heroin into the United States.

My third favorite foreign language film (#1 City of God #2 Battle Royale) This film deals with a very disturbing circumstances, which in fact, are real in this world we live in. Maria looking for a job agrees to smuggle drugs into the United States and while watching this movie, it had my full attention, I was literally on my seat when they stopped her at the airport. Even though she is doing something awful, for money, you can't help but root for her to get out of that situation and are happy when another poor woman gets caught.

The script was well written and felt completely real. You can't help but feel sorry for these girls who do indeed go back to Columbia, just to get stuffed again and fly back and fourth and not always end in the good way.

The acting was surprisingly good. Moreno brings this poor, confused, heroic young woman to life with one of the best performances from a female actress in 2004. Not only is the leading lady giving us a powerful performance, but the supporting characters are just as great and intense. You feel sorrow for Lucy and her sister, and depending on how you look at it, hate or feel sorrow for Blanca, Maria's friend.

This movie had such a powerful story, each scene is just as tense as the other. There were also some clever visuals in the movie particularly at the end. As Maria walks away...read what it says behind her...Then, you will realize what the movie was all about.

7.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Identity (James Mangold)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/identity/_group_photos/amanda_peet2.jpg

"Predictable, yet...not"


When a nasty storm hits a hotel, ten strangers are stranded within and as they begin to know each other, they discover they are being killed off one by one.

This is a really dark film that succeeds in confusing you and gets you wondering whodunnit, I would have been disappointed if it had ended any other way. Identity is a stylish looking film, full of wet, dark imagery that increases the creep factor. The film is also suspenseful throughout, featuring plenty of genuine scares and surprises for the most part. However, as the film continues to run, it becomes obvious that we, the audience, are being set up for a switch in the film's basic premise. I figured out that they were all different personalities, but did not see Liotta being a convict, or the kid being the killer. Which is why I liked this film so much, because it constantly throws curveballs at you left, right and centre.

The direction of the film is influenced in equal amounts by many different people, for instance Fincher, Hitchcock and Agatha Christie. Throughout the film, I was impressed with the atmosphere created. The acting, was convincing and this helped the director throw as many curveballs as he did.

Liotta is as always the hot tempered guy about to blow in every scene, Cusack gives a great performance as always and I was surprised by Peets performance, she hold up with the more expierenced actors on the set. The chemistry was really good as well between the characters, even though most of the time they distrust each other.

I essentially believe that this film is worth watching for all fans of a wide range of genres: thriller, horror, and pure whodunits (especially anyone who has read Christie's And Then There Were None). This is a film that tries to throw a twist or two in and actually succeeds with it, unlike films that try to hard and stuf it down your throat.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

STAR WARS: Revenge of the Sith
(George Lucas)

http://www.dpadz.com/imgs/revenge-of-the-sith-ship.jpg

"Great film, with disappointments"

We start off with your typical STAR WARS, but go down to a non-typical fight. TIE fighters everywhere, beautiful special effects, but from the ongoing camera movements and the bright colors on the screen, it got a little disorienting. The reason for this? Well the clone war is ending and a new villain has entered the series known as General Grevious, half alien half machine with four arms, who from what I've read all over the internet was suppose to be a Jedi killing mother, which brings me to disappointment number one.

General Grevious. This thing does not kill one Jedi in this entire movie. In the scene were OBI-WAN enters and Grevious tells the others to back off, he takes out his four light sabers ready to own. I get excited expecting to see the 2nd best light-saber battle in the whole series. Yet, what we get is a short 2 minute if that fight. First of all, no way can Kenobi block all the light sabers from this guy with his one, yet he does and he manages to slice off two of Grevous's sabers, then the little guy runs away, his end comes by a gun, shot by obi-wan, what a waste of my time, that was pathetic.You expect to see this guy kick major ass and he's taken out of the picture so easily, which is one of my problems with the whole prequel series (Darth Maul/Jango Fett)

This movie of course is darker then the first two and probably darker then Empire Strikes Back, it also carries the most light-saber battles/action scenes in the entire series.....but after seeing so many light sabers battles they kind of lose their excitement.

YODA VS EMPEROR....while great, kinda let down by the shortness and how they did not use their "arena" to the full potential. ANAKIN VS OBI-WAN, people have been waiting for 20 years for this battle and it finally comes, it was good, you can even say epic in a way. But worth the wait of 20 years......I think not. Mace Windu and random Jedi VS EMPEROR....boy did those JEDI get it in 3 seconds or what, it looked like he was literally slow as a snail going uphill when he stuck the light-saber in them and yet the still take the hit. MACE Windu owned the emperor in the battle and the glass shatter was a great. The best light-saber battle is still DUEL OF FATES

Excited to see old characters such as Chewie and VADER, even though you know for a fact that they will have little screen time you can't help but feel disappointed with what they do in that screen time. Vader has no more then 5 minutes on the screen and the Frankenstein tribute was totally stupid in my opinion and took away from the awesomeness of VADER. LACK of Chewie.....lack of Wookies in general. The battle between the Wookies is very short.

What are the absolute worse things about this movie, well you probably would have guessed it, since it does not improve what so ever over the other two...dialogue and acting. A lot of the times I found myself rolling my eyes at the utter stupidness of some of the lines.

"You're so beautiful.."
"Only because I'm so in love."
"No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

HAYDEN is still bad as Anakin until the transformation takes place. Ewan is probably the worst one here.

"hang on were smarter than this"

That is said after being trapped in an energy shield and of course the unbelievable scene where he sees his PADWAN a person who he calls his brother and person he loves kill the young lings (another gripe....just call them children) and all he can say in a monotone voice is something along the lines of

"I can't watch this"

Please it looked/sounded like he was just reading it from the script. Not all the acting and dialogue is bad in this film, the highlight of the movie is PALPATINE....like Ebert said in his review, he has the hardest job of playing a character on both sides and he pulls this off marvelously. He owned this movie, even more then YODA....who owned the second.

Yes this is the better of the first two prequels for the fact that we get more into seeing why things are the way they are....Luke/Leia, Emperor and his disfigurement, that's about it, yup they don't really tie the two films together very well in my opinion. I was just waiting for more things to pop up to tie them together. There are still plot holes. Which I do not want to read the books to find the answers to, this should have been addressed in the film.

1> Who is Cyphis Deus? 2> How does Leia remember her birth mother

We all know what happens in this film and everyone is only going to watch it to see how these things come to be, but I was hoping/praying for one thing to be a surprise, one little thing. I remember reading somewhere that a line is spoken that shatters the STAR WARS universe, where is this line? We all know the Anakin becomes VADER and I was impressed with the story behind why he did this, but not with the amount of time it took for him to do this....it was so quick. I understand the time frame but come on, the movie went by so fast you could of put more time for the transition. The movie is 2:30, but with all the action it flies by so fast. When ANAKIN VS OBI-WAN came up I was thinking to myself, already? I didn't like how he chose the dark side to save Padme's life, but tries to kill her at the same time.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Mr. In-Between (Paul Sarossy)

http://www.nonstopentertainment.com/pix/titles/mr_in_between_bild2.jpg

"This hitman missed his mark"

Jon is an ideal employee: neat, efficient and conscientious. The torture he inflicts is effective and the kills are swift. Mentored by his tattooed boss, the only thing asked of Jon is total quality. But something happens...and for the first time Jon let his emotions affect his work. Now the tables are turned as the boss and the hit-man face off in the most dangerous kind of business...The Killing Kind."

The main problem with this film was that I just couldn't get into it, it had great characters, a good story and twists that would all account for a great film. But it just missed that thing that makes films interesting. Maybe it was the "low-budget" aspect of the quality of film that made me dis-like the film, or maybe the fact that I thought it was going to be something totally different.

He isn't a hit-man that I would picture, he hardly ever uses a gun (which is showcased on the cover). He uses a pool cue and a fire poker among things. The dialouge does indeed suck, but that's British films for you (Save Shaun and Snatch).

The fact of the matter is, this film tries to be something that it's not, which is SNATCH and LOCK STOCK, with a twist at the end that will shock some, but leave the others asking why. There are some great characters here that could use a touch up here or there, other then that, this film is a disappointment,

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Starship Troopers 2 (Phil Tippett)

http://www.so-net.ne.jp/SF-Online/no13_19980325/image/special/special_2/starship_troopers_2.gif

"Takes all the fun out of the original"


What made the first movie fun was the fact that it was humans against bugs, and seeing that was great, what happens here is a one night, human VS human thing which is pathetic and been done too many times before.

No one wants to see the same thing on screen they've seen years before, you want to do something fresh, especially in a sequel. That is the conflicting thing here, it is indeed very different from the first movie, but you must realise that different isn't always a good thing, you will not get good reviews for trying something different,m it has to work and here it does not.

I rented this movie to see more action between bugs and humans, see some news bugs, not small bugs taking over humans, anyone see DECOYS, this movie is good for two reasons, boobs and some nice deaths. I did like the main actor though, he showed a nice rough toughness, but the movie was too predictable, with bad acting, and no fun.....yup, I was bored in a movie that is solely made to entertain, it's a shame it fails on many levels.

This movie would be at the very least decent as a stand alone film, having nothing to do with Starship Troopers, but the fact of the matter is, is that it is a sequel, one that should have never seen the light of day.

4.5/10

[7thson]

Here is a good test...just asking....WHat do you think of Flash Gordon? Lets see an in depth review now.:)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Campfire Stories (Bob Cea)

http://www.dvdloc8.com/images/dvdcover/9302.jpg

"Not THE Worst film of all time"


Not as bad as "Carnivore", this low budget film is still sh*t, but I have more respect for it then I have for "The Worst Movie Ever, Carnivore". Anyways...Two teens on their way to a backwoods party come across a beautiful young woman (Jamie-Lynn Sigler) having car trouble, so they go into the woods to find campers she said she saw, they run into Ranger Bill, and he starts telling them these campfire stories. There are 3 stories, one involves a lunatic killer, the other a haunted Indian/weed pipe and the last one is yet another killer story. Personally I liked the last story the best, but that is not saying much. I mistakenly bought Carnivore in a 5 dollar bin at Wal mart, I got this at Christmas. There was a deal if you buy one movie, you get another one, my mom picked it while she was getting the "Awesome" Dog Soldiers.

The acting is mostly high school level and the music is really lame. The worst performance is "Ranger Bill" played by David Johansen, he really sinks this movie. I will admit, at the beginning I had hopes for it, it was going alright, then they meet up with Bill and it goes downhill from there. Now the acting is as bad as Carnivore (I'll be making lots of references to it) but it is worse than Evil Dead. So you get the idea, the best performance is from a guy who has 2 lines it, the escaped lunatic mental killer in the first story.

The first story, about a group of jocks picking on a school handyman, doesn't fair much better in it's acting or production values. Once it gets going there is a level of creepiness to it but the whole set up before the climax is so poorly done that you find yourself caring very little about what happens.

Aside from some poor special effects (well good in a high school class project sort of way) the second story involving three troublemakers looking to profit from the murder of a native man, fails to really grab the viewer. There isn't much wrong with the story it just doesn't do much until the twist ending. At that point everything registers and the story makes sense, unfortunately it's not much fun getting to that point.

The final, and best, story is a nice little "who-done-it". While the story, of four friends getting together for a night of "passion" which ends in murder, doesn't really set itself up as well as it could, it does contain the most suspense of the 4 stories. This entry contains the best of everything in the movie, best story, acting and suspense. The topper is that is also contains the best ending as you continue to guess who the culprit is.

If you are the kind of fan who likes low budget campy kind of stuff, then be my guest. If you thought carnivore was at the very least okay, then give this one a try, it has a lot of of screen gore, like chainsaw scene in Scarface. For instance, the lead jock's neck and a saw come to meet, but all you see is the blood drip onto his chest. There's no nudity, hardly any language this movie doesn't feel like a real horror movie to me, just some kind of thriller, with one or two horror elements thrown in.

2.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Primal Fear (Gregory Hoblit)

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jun1996/gfx/mtvTop.gif

"Norton Shines"


Here is a movie that gives away the ending in the TAGLINE, and yet no one sees it coming. I guessed he was a schizo when he first said he black out, but to find out that it was all a act, is brilliant, and it was brilliantly delivered by a new face, EDWARD NORTON.

Norton in my opinion was the shinning moment in this film and GERE gives his average performance yet again. What GERE lacks is what NORTON makes up for in this film. The supporting cast does a good job, Laura gets credit for out doing GERE in my opinion.

The script is a little weak and of course has plot holes, but the twist ending makes up for an other wise average story. The direction is good and uses the NORTON character very well, AARON is such a pathetic, innocent character that when we see ROY, we believe that this is real, again kudos to NORTON.

The ending leaves little to the imagination, it could have ended a little better in my opinion, tie up some lose knots here and there. Abrupt endings kill a lot of movies.....REVENGE OF THE SITH.

I was surprised to see the GORE at the beginning of this film, with the murder of the BISHOP and the language seemed out of place from some characters, but then on the other hand totally in place (ROY).

This is a film that has a good premise and great twist, but is left in the shadows of other "TWIST" films, that in my opinion are not as good as this one. This film deserves a little more recognition that it receives and it's a shame it did not. The only person who benefited from it is of course NORTON.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Primer (Shane Carruth)
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/thinkfilm/primer/shane_carruth/primer.jpg
http://www.adelaidefilmfestival.org/images/photos/primer.jpg

"Not your average sci/fi"

This is a low budget movie from first time director Shane Carruth and based on that it is a really good film. It is a sci/fi movie, but not like you other sci/fi movies, this one is more based on story then special effects and mumbo jumbo time travel dialouge. Yes, it's a time travel movie and it's one for the thinkers too.

The movie is about two friends who, develop new technologies in their garage. The two accidentally discover that their latest invention can actually send objects back in time. With this new found discovery, they make one bigger with the intention of sending actual people through time and take very important steps along the way to make sure that it does not affect their actual life, in the past.

Since it was only made for a short amount of money, the audio and visual portions of the film are a little on the down side but I really dug the unique visual camera shots of the film. Certain shots were very clever and made the film seem on a more of an artistic level.

Yes, I'm not afraid to say that I didn't understand most of it, but hey, if you're into low-budget/time travel type movies, give it a shot. I'm sure you won't be disappointed, but the time travel isn't what you think it is. This is not Back to the Future, this is a Donnie Darko, of shorter caliber

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Face/Off (John Woo)

http://www.shop4photos.net/graphics/228/228515.jpg

"Switching Roles"

John Woo is the so called master of action films, where he puts heavy on the action and light on the characters, he does this again with FACE/Off, but what makes this film different is the fact that the characters actually switch roles in it, which makes it more interesting then his previous "american films". We see the actors brilliantly display hate/love and imitate each other. Without this element, this film would probably fall flat on it's face in the action genre and become a fading memory, instead of making it's mark in film

Other then the fact that they switch roles, what makes this film different from it's other rivals? Not that much, it's your typical gun fights here, explosions there, chase scene here, but does that mean that it makes it unenjoyable? Certainly not. There are tons of scenes where the bullets fly for those action hounds and of course the movie has the signature double gun from hard boiled and Woo's birds flying away. Woo has a talented eye for action, but not very much for characters, does that harm this film, a little, but again with the fact that the actors in it, portray different personalities, you don't really get a sense of that, you feel for the character of Archer and his dead son. CAGE, who is a personal fav, gives a great performance, but it's TRAVOLTA, the "bad guy' who gets the glory in this film for having a fun time.

The story is laughable, but fun and that's what this movie is, pure fun. It does have emotional parts of it, but it does little for people who go to see this movie, unless your a sappy person who cries at the death of everybody. The ending is a little inane, but forgivable in this film. It could have had a better ending, which would have made the film go down in history as a great action film, instead of a fun action film, which is what so many action films are like today.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino)

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/09/06/pulp_fiction,0.jpg

"One of the greatest films of all time"

Pulp Fiction is a movie that grabs you by the throat and won't let go till the end. With it's great cast, incredible direction and unique ( at the time) dialouge, Tarantino has created a movie that will go down in film history as one of the best and will be remember for years to come.

Pulp Fiction is 3 stories interconnecting. Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield are two hit men on the hunt for a briefcase whose contents were stolen from their boss, Marsellus Wallace. Marsellus is out of town, and he's gotten Vincent to take care of his wife, Mia. That is, take her out for a night on the town. Butch Coolidge is a boxer who's been approached by Marsellus and been told to throw his latest fight. Pumpkin and Honey Bunny are two lovebirds/thieves who have decided to rob the restaurant they're currently eating at. But the restaurant doesn't turn out to be as easy as the other places they've robbed.

This is a film that has intense moments that will have you on the edge of your seat, case in point, the overdose scene where they need to inject a shot of adrenaline into Mia's heart. The close up tension from Tarantino and dialouge will have you on the edge of your seat no matter how many times you have seen it. What Pulp Fiction does so well is blend this with comedic scenes and basically "nothing" scenes which make it more real then other films that we see.

Tarantino manages to get great performances out of mediocre film stars like Travolta and Willis, who steal the show. But not without the supporting cast of so many great and talent actors, who fit their characters to perfection. Samuel L. Jackson is Jules, and no one else.

What makes it more interesting is that the three stories connect and are told not in order, so multiple viewings are needed to understand the film as a whole, and with it's length, you would expect it to drag on in certain scenes, but with it's witty dialouge and the superb cast in those scenes you are nothing feeling like it's going on too long.

Tarantino has pulled off a great film and I believe will never top it, this film is the best film of the 90's and one of the best films of all time.

10/10

[7thson]

Cut and paste like a mad man................I assume that you are posting your own reviews from another forum/site. If so I gues thats cool. Must have had some bad experience at your "late" home. If so welcome. I have read what you have posted thus far with enthusiasm.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Done, for now. Yes, can you tell from the oscar things for sideways/million dollar baby, lol.:D

[LordSlaytan]

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)

6.5/10If you're interested why this film is my favorite Kubrick film, and on my top ten list, read here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=146506). :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

I've only seen a select few Kubrick films...need to broaden my horizon.

[LordSlaytan]

Which ones have you seen?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Eyes Wide Shut
The Shinning
2001
Clockwork Orange
half of spartacus

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Matrix Revolutions
(Wachowski Brothers)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_matrix__revolutions/hugo_weaving/matrix6.jpg

Most Disappointing film of 2003


Revolutions was disappointing. Its too bad too, I liked Reloaded and I liked the Matrix In the first Matrix there were many ideas crucial to the plot that were just taken for granted by everyone, such as the existence of an "Oracle" inside the matrix, as well as the existence of a "One", wow after Reloaded I had hundreds of theories, and when this film came out, to see none of them revealed, or anything remotely good at all, it takes a dive into crap.

This is the weak spot in the trilogy, it does have the best special effects, even the phoney SUPER PUNCH to Smith's face was alright. It is the darkest, with death to some main characters, but I guess it's a main problem is that the Wachowski brothers couldn't come up with an ending to please themselves, so they just threw one together. It is probably the worst way to end a trilogy that could of easily become one of the greatest.

The acting in both of the Matrix films are flat, with this one showing the most emotion from Reeves wiithout the aid of SIGHT, which impressed me very much. Morpheus is nothing but a supporting character here and Trinity just follows Neo everywhere, then dies...again. OH GOD the death scene, it went all Shakespear on us here and dragged on a bit too long. The Kid, it's safe to say that this is the Jar Jar of The Matrix. His dialouge was horrible and terribly delievered, "Neo, I believe" Had me laughing to tear out of embarassment

The fight scenes...wow, and not in a good way. First of all we get a rehased version of the lobby scene in the first one, but how do we make it different, oh we'll get the upside down. Very interesting...please, show us something tangable. How about the Smith/Neo fight, have you've ever seen an episode of Dragon Ball Z, well, yea, that's basically what the fight is, fly around kick here and there and then just give in. Can you say way too many rain bubbles, 3 is enough, not more. The Zion VS Machines was the highligt of this film, it was beautiful and suspenseful, everything I imagined it to be.

The machine city was interesting, and beautiful, the orange/yellow lights, neo's power that is stretches beyond the matrix, all the way to the source, please, that's a cop out. Neo and Trinity soaring beyond the skies, seeing the beautiful sun, just before dipping back into hell, beautiful.

Every character that was the least bit interesting was useless here. The Merovingian, Perphosone, Seraph, Twins (not present, come on they didn't die). I expected a kick ass fight between the smiths and seraph, but got nothing. Every fight scene was a let down.

The story relies on it's viewers to know everything about the the matrix universe, you need to play the games, you need to watch the animatrix, read the comics, just like Episode III. "Holy ****, it's wingless" What does this mean, Serpah has an outer shell like the Oracle, and this is his new one? I don't want to go to the games to get the answers.

Overall, I was disappointed with the outcome of this movie, it was a let down, maybe because it was over-hyped, maybe because it was simply crap...I'll never know.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/focus_features/broken_flowers/_group_photos/bill_murray1.jpg

"Jim Jarmusch's Best Film, Not Murray's"


Will Bill Murray get a nomination for Best Actor this year? Well probably, because there's not much out there, sure he's good in the film, but throughout the whole movie he looks like a deer caught in headlights.

Jim Jarmush has his best film here, it's heart warming, funny, and sad, he blends them all so well. He fades almost in every scene, some may think this is overdone, but I believe it worked very well for the tone of the film. This movie is this years Sideways.

The ending is a bit of a downer, some might like it some might not, it leads us to believe that he may or may not have a son, throughout the whole film he goes looking for this woman and finds out that it was a lie planned by his latest girlfriend. He sleeps around without alot of women and his latest girlfriend wanted him to "find" himself by looking up these women in his life. Oringally he was a man who couldn't care, he's a bachelor and wants no kids, yet he changes over the course of his road trip, he even visits the one girlfriend who died.

The ending also leads you to also believe that he may keep searching for his "hypothetical" son, with everyone one that looks like him, it could very well be his son or not.

Bill Murray has the same expression on his face throughout the film, so his performance is not as good as Lost in Translation, but it's note-worthy. The women he makes contact with, are very different, one tries to be young, one tries to be conservative, and may still have feelings for Don (Murray), one has taken a career change from Lawyer to animal communicator, that's right she talks to animals and one is basically trailer park trash. Don see's this women and it sheds light on his lonely pathetic life.

The music in the movie is a blend of all the same, a CD given to Don from Winston, his neighbour, of a foreign decent, I can't remember the name. The comedy in the film is very undertonned. It may pop up out of nowhere and just ease in dramatically. One scene that was totally random was when the first women his goes to daughter flirts with him and she pops out of her room naked.

Overall, this is an artiscally done film, with minor problems, mainly Murray one look face, but depsite that, it's a good flick and you won't be disappointed with the results.

8/10

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Just a suggestion TUS, but if you want people to read a review of a new film, you should put spoiler text formatting on the specific spoilers, so that those of us who haven't seen it yet can read the part that isn't spoil-ing.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Thanks for the spoiler info, if you read it, and have not seen the movie, I apologize.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

No worries here. I got as far as you saying *spoilers* and stopped reading. :p
Now that I have read it, thanks for the review!

[TheUsualSuspect]

:) Thanks Delilah

[TheUsualSuspect]

Gangster No.1 (Paul McGuigan)


http://www.theworldjournal.com/special/movies/2001/gangster1.gif

"Paul Bettany shows his acting chops"

Gangster No.1 shows the rise and fall of a prominent English gangster. Malcolm McDowell is Gangster 55, telling the story in voice overs, and Paul Bettany shines as the Young Gangster giving a great performance, which carries the film from cookie cutter gangster film, to one of the best.

This film is filled with inspirations from many others, such as Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, Get Shorty, etc. While some do work, such as "Look into my eyes", others don't, McGuigan, near the end of the film, fast forwards through decades in just a couple of minutes, we don't feel like we are with these people throughout their reign of terror in England. The film does have bits of originality, such as the "torture" while we see the FPV of the victim, fades in and out in his dying minutes, as the killer stands over his body, continuing the slaughter.

Paul Bettany shows how good he is in this film as he carries it to another level. His eyes in his "Look into my eyes" scenes are so hollow and terrifying that you know if he was interrogating you, that he could and probably would kill you at anytime. He has the look in his sharp suits and the style. It's a shame no awards went his way. McDowell, to me in this film is a little bit of, I don't know how to say it, but he didn't do all that much for me. The rest of the cast holds up well, blending well with the story line and environments they are put in.

The script is sharp and has a Goodfellas/Reservoir Dogs feel to it, the Goodfellas aspect shows the rise and fall, where as Reservoir Dogs, comes from it's dialouge. I've never heard the word c*nt used so many times. The film took it's time to showcase the rise of this young gangster from a common thug, to a crime lord. The one thing that did out me off though was the fact the he was just picked up out of a bar and given a spot. When Freddie goes to prison, that's when the young gangster takes his spot in being no. 1. Years go by and Freddie finally is released, while McDowell eagerly awaits his return, he expect some conflict, but what he get is a let down, I won't ruin what happens, but you'd expect something explosive.

So Gangster No. 1 showcases great performances from the actors involved and shows a great story that takes it time, instead of bang bang, you're dead. The film just lacks that one special thing to take it to greatness, above and beyond those other movies, but for now, it can just be the one to stand out.


7.5/10

[Holden Pike]

Gangster No. 1 is OK, not bad, but there are a pile of truly great Brit gangster pics that should be seen before you bother with it, especially The Long Good Friday, Sexy Beast, Layer Cake and the original Get Carter.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Gangster No. 1 is OK, not bad, but there are a pile of truly great Brit gangster pics that should be seen before you bother with it, especially The Long Good Friday, Sexy Beast, Layer Cake and the original Get Carter.
I've been meaning to get Layer Cake, looks interesting. Sexy Beast is alright, and have yet to see the others one's you've mentioned.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I love Paul Bettany.
Love him.
I'd really like to see him in a great movie. He's usually the bright spot in a fairly dim picture.

[Lester Burnham]

I've been meaning to get Layer Cake, looks interesting. Sexy Beast is alright, and have yet to see the others one's you've mentioned.

I would strongly recommend you purchase Layer Cake is a great film

[TheUsualSuspect]

Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku)


http://www.2300plan9.com/2002/2002/html/images/battle_royale_09.jpg

"It's kill or be killed in this extreme shocker"

"At the dawn of the Millenium, the nation collapsed. At 15% unemployment, 10 million were out of work, 800,000 students boycotted school. The adults lost confidence, and fearing the youth, eventually passed the 'Millenium Educational Reform Act'...AKA: The BR Act."

42 ninth grade students are taken to a small isolated island with a map, food and various arms. They have to fight each other until only one is left, and they only have 3 days to do this. Each student is locked with an explosive collar that will go off if messed with, when the three days are up, or if they are in a danger zone.

Where do I begin, this is one of very few movies that makes you feel like you are actually there. I've never had so much fun watching a movie like this. It grabs you by the throat in it's first ten minutes and doesn't let go till the very end.

Early on in the movie, you get the jist of things and pick your favourites to win, regardless of the main characters. This movie is so extreme that it makes you think from the very beginning that even the two main characters, Boy #15 and Girl #15, may die at any point in this film. This film instantly caught my attention.

Each character in this movie is given a bag, that contains food, water, a map, some female supplies (for the ladies of course) and a random weapon, and when I say random, I mean RANDOM. The weapons range from an uzi, to a pot lid, and everything in between (paper fan, tracking device, coat hanger, these are their weapons). One poor kid was stuck with boxing gloves. The tagline for this film is "Can you kill your best friend?" Honestly, I don't know if I could. But here teams are formed early, your computer hackers, you're female cooks and your "gang" and you can bet your ass that they are all friends.

After each death, there is a countdown on the screen. "Boys # 7 #8 are dead, 35 to go". Even the teacher, who is mostly the comic relief in this intense film, reads off the death list and the order they died in, just before telling each student what part of the island is a danger zone. The danger zones in the film, add to the suspense, the thrills, the excitment and overall carnage that takes place on screen. Because of these danger zones, you know that the students must always be moving somewhere, or else the collar will explode, ripping their throat open and gushing blood. Which happens early on in the film, just to show you what you're in for. There are so many over-the-top scenes, that fit perfectly in this movie, even when kids are shot dozens of times and yet the just keep on tickin. It does have corney dialouge, but you get passed that and actually may find it enjoyable.

The music is beautiful, the opera sound and opening are perfect for this film, it blends so well with it's tone and the atmosphere surrounding the students.

It's always great to be sitting there cheering for characters, wanting others to die and crying for ones who do. Having this kind of fun in a mvie is once in a lifetime. One part I do not get, but had me laughing saying WTF

When the Teacher was shot, then his phone rings and he all of a sudden gets up to answer it

It's easy to see where Kill Bill got lots of it's scenes from. This movie will stay in the history of film as one that will shock viewers upon first viewings. If you go into this movie to have fun, you will not be disappointed, if you look deep enough, you will see the politics within it, but for now I will leave that chapter closed, and just leave you with the fact that this film is a must see for any violence craving maniac.

9.5/10

[Darth Stujitzu]

I enjoyed the manic quality to the film, and Takeshi Mike( the teacher ) is always watchable.I suppose anyone watching this movie for the first time without a general knowledge of Asian cinema might get a little lost or caught up in it, but it's dumb fun if you can handle the violence.
Haven't seen Battle Royale 2 yet, I'm waiting for it to come down in price at my local DVD shop.

[TheUsualSuspect]

skip it, it is trash.

[Tacitus]

I enjoyed the manic quality to the film, and Takeshi Mike( the teacher ) is always watchable.

*cough* Kitano *cough*

http://reve.sans.fin.free.fr/BattleRoyale/Gallerie/aTakeshiKitano.JPG

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews you suspect you :D

[Darth Stujitzu]

*cough* Kitano *cough*

http://reve.sans.fin.free.fr/BattleRoyale/Gallerie/aTakeshiKitano.JPG



Ok I'm confused. He has various names he goes by, Beat Kitano was his comedy name to start with when he did stand-up, but I thought when he directed or was acting he preffered to be called Takeshi Mike.
Put me out of my misery Tacitus, talk about clolur me confused!


Just been on imdb, realise I'm confusing him with someone else, he is also known as Beat Takeshi, not Takeshi Mike the director! D'OH!
I'm away to lie down in a dark room, my brain hurts!

[Tacitus]

Ok I'm confused. He has various names he goes by, Beat Kitano was his comedy name to start with when he did stand-up, but I thought when he directed or was acting he preffered to be called Takeshi Mike.
Put me out of my misery Tacitus, talk about clolur me confused!


Just been on imdb, realise I'm confusing him with someone else, he is also known as Beat Takeshi, not Takeshi Mike the director! D'OH!
I'm away to lie down in a dark room, my brain hurts!

Ok - potted history lesson. :D

Takeshi Kitano is the name he goes by as a director, writer, editor etc. 'Beat' Takeshi is a nickname which goes back to his days on the stand-up comedy circuit as part of The Two Beats (himself and his partner were Jazz fans). He uses 'Beat' Takeshi when he acts.

Takashi Miike is this man:

http://www.ihmagazine.it/imgarticoli/interviste/takashi_miike_izo/tmiike.jpg

Director of Audition, Ichi The Killer etc... ;)

[Pyro Tramp]

Takeshi 'Beat' Kitano (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001429/)

Takashi Miike (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0586281/)


Quite seperate ends of Japanese cinema, both worth looking into, Darth. From what i've seen Kitano makes great thought provoking films and Miike makes mad and messy films.

Btw, don't wait for Battle Royale 2, it's one of the few films i got really angry about the fact i wasted 2 hours watching it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Transporter 2 (Louis Leterrier)


http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/transporter2.jpg

"Turn off your brain...all the way off"

Frank is a transporter, he transports goods, but on this outting, he's a driver for a child to and from school. When the child is kidnapped, it's up to Frank to get him back.

The original movie was an above average action flick, it made a star out of Statham, who I seem to enjoy in all his movies. He breaks one of his rules and open the package, which sends him on an action adventure behind the wheel, here he has moved to the States and is a hired driver to take a kid to and from school. He's only been the driver for about a month, when a plan to kidnap the kid is underway.

This is a film for people who enjoy car chases, martial arts and the "it would never happen in real life". Right from the beginning we get a fight scene where our hero takes on 5 carjackers. He kicks ass then drives off. The first attempted kidnapping of the takes place at a doctor's office, where the bad guys kill the people in the office and take their uniforms. Frank sees something is wrong and kicks more ass. Kid gets kidnapped, frank has to get him back, and then more ass kicking and car driving, that is basically your movie here.

The one thing that in my opinion that totally took me out of this movie is the unbelievable things that happen. First of all, apparently bullets cannot go through a wooden door, but are able to blow up helicopters and go through everything else, but of course our hero is behind that wooden door, so no bullets. Second of all is the car driving from the top of one parking lot, and landing into another one, unharmed, boy he has great aim. BUT, just when you think he's aim couldn't get any better, he drives his car off a ramp and flips his car in the air doing barrel rolls, hitting a crane to knock off the bomb on the bottom of his car, just as it explodes. This guy is really good. Of course he also takes on 20 guys who all have swords and axes...and he has his fists and feet. Am I done, of course not, he saves the "cure" serum from a truck tire, literally before it get's crushed. He jumps in mid air as two cars crash right underneath him. Remembers that oil scene in the first one, well he uses it for his arm in here.

If you enjoy that, or can get passes those things, then this movie is a great action film. There were some gripes with the direction and editting, but in this type of film, you can forgive some of that, but it could be a distraction in the fights scenes. Is this going to win an oscar for the screenplay, well, when stuff like this happens.

Hero gets on plane.

Hero: You're flight has been cancelled.

Bad guy pulls out gun

Bad guy: No, you have been cancelled

shoots and misses.

With all these negatives in the movie, you may be wondering if anyone could enjoy it, well you can, and I did. It's not as smart as the first one, or as fresh, but it does keep your attention to the action on the screen. Among other things....like a women who only wears lingerie, even out in public.

The music was your typical modern rock, with a surprising "Cells" The Servant (Sin City Theme Music) which comes out of no where. There were a scene or two that made me laugh, the French detective plays as the comic relief, who has a crappy vacation. The ending, well depending on Box Office, could mean a possible third installment.

Can I recommend the film? Well, I've told you what happens in it, and if you are okay with all that "YEAH-RIGHT" scenes, then of course, it's a good movie to end the summer blockbusters with.

6.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review Sus, I think I will give this a miss, I wasn't that keen on the first one :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

OLDBOY (Chan-wook Park)

"Brilliant Performance and Direction"

Old Boy Dae-Su Oh gets imprisoned for 15 years not knowing why, every so often music will play and gas will enter the room, knocking him out. Everytime he awakens hair cut, shaved and the room have been cleaned. Upon his release he has 5 days to find out why in the first place and by whom his captors were.

This is the second film by Park in series of revenge films. After seeing this film, I am very eager to view Sympathy for Mr. Vengence and the upcoming third installment. Park shows his talent in this film as he shows us a beautifully choreographed corridor fight scene, with no cuts. The camera simply pans back and forth through the action and the fights scenes aren't those one guy takes on ten with high flying action, it's real, it's grounded and he still takes on ten guys.

Min-sik Choi gives one of the best performances I've seen in awhile and the bad guy, although not as dynamic as Choi, holds up well as well. The other supporting cast are able to portray real emotions and make the whole movie work and come all together in the performances. Ijn the climax of the film, Choi gives not only a brilliant performance, but a weird one, that will have you either in tears of sorrow, or laughter. It's great seeing him try to adapt to the world, after being imprisoned for 15 years, like what he would do if he were to see a woman.

The film is violent, not in a killing way, because most of the deaths are taken place off-screen. The violence comes from torture scenes, you know, where a guy takes a hammer and takes out the guys teeth...ouch. There is a plot twist, and it is a big one. I was shocked and it stuck with me for ten or so minutes, the twist is controversial, which may put off a lot of American audiences, but I believe it makes the film what it is.

You feel sorrow for the main character, and even the bad guy, but can't really grasp this emotion until the climax of the film, a little late if you ask me, but the emotion that that scene brings out is in top form. It's a scene that goes down in history as disturbing, heart-wrenching, violent, suspenseful, funny, shocking...all in one.

So what can I say about this film, well, it's one to watch, maybe more then once, because it could be difficult for some to grasp at first, or even if you do, may be hard to actually "believe". Aside from that, this film is a treat for the eyes as one of the best revenge films to grace the screen.

9/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review, I really liked this movie :yup:

[Pyro Tramp]

Oldboy 'effin epic, Sympathy for Mr Vengeance is good, though a very different film, need to watch it again really. I too am looking forward to Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, now if only i could find a UK release date :(

[christine]

Expected release date for the Sympathy for Lady Vengeance dvd is 30th November

[Pyro Tramp]

Oooh, region?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Cannibal Holocaust (Rugerro Deodato)

http://antigo.turnodanoite.com/imagens/cholocaust1.jpg


"The most disturbing, realistic, brutal movie...ever"


A New York anthropologist travels to the jungles of South America with two local guides to find out what happened to a documentary film crew which disappeared nearly a year earlier. After a long search and encountering a few primitive tribes, they find the remains of the crew and several reels of their undeveloped film. While in the US, the anthropologist views the material on the films.

So this is the film that they did not want you to see, after seeing it, I can see why. Here is a film that has hundreds of people who love it, and just as many who hate it. Mostly because of the violent content within the film, it's too raw and horrific for some, but for others, they love every minute of it. Myself, I'm in that one percent who's indifferent.

This is a grindhouse picture, where it's basically two stories into one movie, the first half of the movie is the search party who goes into the jungle looking for the film crew. The second half of the movie is the actual film footage from the documentary crew, which portion of the film I liked more is hard to decide, because what we see in the first half is shocking to us, we have not seen this before, it's new and it's brutal, but happens in the second half of the movie is more brutal, but not as shocking, because you are expecting the uncomfortably of the film to grow, and it does.

This movie influenced the likes of films like The Blair Witch Project. Here is a movie that goes down in history as one of the most shocking movies of all time, does it deserve that title? Well, let's see, during the 90 some odd minutes of the film, be ready for:

3 different rape scenes, full-frontal nudity (both male and female), decapitations, real-life animal killings, guts ripping, people burning, torture, the most disturbing abortion scenes ever, limbs being chopped off, people getting impaled, bodies being hacked to bits and guts being ripped out and what makes it worse is that it's not that kind of "Dead-Alive" tounge in cheek gore, it's so realistic and disturbing.

The music is beautiful, the theme song that plays throughout it amazing and a high point in this film. Don't pick it up for acting, or dialouge...but then again I wouldn't imagine someone doing that. This is a horror movie for those disturbed horror fans, those who want to see this movie to see what all the talk is about, brace yourself, you're in for some pretty horrific stuff. I'm not going to go into the whole political aspect of animal killings, but those were some of the hardest scenes to watch in this film.

People are put off by the violence, so they fail to see what it's about. How we today are more curious about what's bad in the world, then what is good, how the journalist focus more on violent issues. Was it overdone? But then again, maybe it was just the right amount. It also shows how we as a culture are insensitive and ignorant to others, even if it is a cannibal tribe.

I did dig this film, for it's unique style, that did come out before BWP faze. I love all kinds of horror movies, and this is one not to miss, of course if you can handle this type of stuff. The dvd is limited to about 10,000 copies, so if you want a copy pick it up fast. Oh and did I forget to mention that during it's release it was banned in almost 60 countries.

6.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

28 Days Later (Danny Boyle)

http://images.google.ca/url?q=http://www.feoamante.com/Movies/0/28Days/28DaysAttack.jpg


"Disappointing attempt at reviving a dying genre"

A powerful virus escapes from a British research facility. Transmitted in a drop of blood, the virus infects those and turns them into a zombie like creature. Within 28 days the country is overwhelmed and a handful of survivors begin their attempts to salvage a future, little realizing that the deadly virus is not the only thing that threatens them.

Here is a little film that could have been a jump start in the horror genre, but with it's 2nd act, it falls apart as it tries to be something more then it actually is. It sells itself as an end of the world, fight for our lives film, and does that successfully for the most part, but when it takes a turn into a more humane state, it fizzles out and loses any interest it once had.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the field scene, that was tremendous, the cinematography was really great. The deserted London was probably one things in this movie, that make it watchable. I liked how they weren't you "typical" slow moving "grrr" zombies, but blood-coughing, running marathon zombies. IF you would call them zombies, or just people infected with "RAGE" The military characters are the worse, with the British soldiers being nothing more than your typical foul-mouthed grunts. The clever use of dialouge in "Dog Soldiers" was fast and hip, but still built characters, here it most definitely does not.

What does set this apart from your other zombie type movies is of course is isolated in London feel to it. The main character wakes up naked, sort of reborn, and finds himself in a new world where people are infected with a virus called rage, that turns them into a zombie like creature. It;s nice to see what people would do in this situation, and we get various degrees of that.

Our heros were in more trouble with other humans then they were with the creatures. By the time we got to the climax you were cheering on the Zombies. I thought the love story felt forced because "every" movie needs a love story and I found nothing at all to be thought provoking because it had all been done before. One thing I found odd was the lack of security when the "activists" liberate the chimps.

Since I had such high hopes for this film and was totally astonished at how terrible the last 20 or so minutes of the film was, a horrible ending did the movie in for me, it became the most disappointing movie of the summer.

5/10

[nebbit]

I didn't really like it either, thanks for the review. :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

EVIL DEAD II (Sam Raimi)


http://leviathan-x.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/agentgoth-madash.jpg


"It Ups The Ultimate Expierence In Grueling Terror"


This movie is equal to the original Evil Dead, here we have ASH the lone survivor from the first encounter with the evil dead, fighting off the deadites yet again. ASH encounters some unexpected guests and now everyone must fight for the lives, or become the evil that hunts them.

Sam Raimi does an excellent job of keeping us scared in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, with the dead surrounding us. When ASH is alone in the cabin, we are alone in the cabin and every creaking sound we hear feels like it's right beside us. The eery feeling is not as terrifying as the original, because the original was a punch in the face of terror. This one is more of a drench you in the face with blood, instead of a punch. The touch of dark comedy is great. ASH versus his hand is some comic gold and is a great way to give you some breathing room when you're not terrified of what might happen next.

The script of course is just one guy in a cabin against the dead, but what makes it different is the great one-liners "Swallow This", "Groovy". The movie showcases other characters that hold no emotional value to the viewer what so ever. You don't even feel sorry for the hillbilly who gets stabbed, slammed by the door, kicked, yelled at, while still being stabbed mind you, dragged and then finally something unknown happens to him under the cellar, but it involves gallons upon gallons of blood.

The ending to this film sets up the third installment ARMY OF DARKNESS, which is a total turn around from the first two. The cameo of FREDDY'S glove is a classic nod to Craven's work...or a diss, however you look at it. The whole idea of an evil unknown force underneath you in a cellar is scary enough, not to mention the fact that we have to go down there with our hero, who's armed with trademark boomstick and chainsaw.

This film holds one of my all time favourite scenes. Can you guess it, it's when Ash "saws" off his own hand with a pyscho laugh, while blood splatters across his face and his laugh slowly grows into agony and screaming. If you love blood, dark comedy, great directing, classic B movie acting, one-liners and want to be scared ****less, then check this movie out, as well as the original.


This is what horror is all about, the gore, the atmosphere, the EVIL DEAD

10/10

[Iroquois]

Damn it, I wanna see Evil Dead II. Nice review, man.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Blade Trinity (David S. Goyer)

http://www.creativescreenwriting.com/csdaily/csdart/images/2004-12-Dec/Blade%20Trinity%20-%20The%20Trinity%20in%20question%20(350w).jpg


"The once promising series is now nothing more then bad product placement"


Wesley Snipes returns as vampire hunter Blade in the third and final film in the Blade franchise, Blade: Trinity. When the Vampire Nation hatches a plan to frame Blade in a series of killings, he must join forces with the Nightstalkers, human vampire hunters. Not all is what it seems, when the legendary vampire Dracula makes an appearance.

First of all, I loved the first two films and was eagerly anticipating this third explosive installment. It had some promising elements to it, such as the writer also being the director, with that you'd figure that Goyer would know what direction to take Blade and how to get there, but what we get on the screen is a mix of jumbled characters and no direction what so ever. Writers who are unexperienced should let the directing go to trained professionals, it seems Goyer just left the camera on and let the actors do their thing.

Ryan Renolds, I believe stole the show, even though some of his jokes missed. I can see another movie spinning off from his character alone, but the rest of the Nightstalkers lack any kind of attachment what-so-ever, even Abagail. Dracula (Purcell) is so out of place, his lines are delivered like a board and nail. Posey makes an appearance as the female vampire lead, do I really have to go there? Blade II had some wrestling moves incorporated into it, so how does Goyer up on that, well introduce a wrestler into this flick, who has no acting talent what so ever, he's basically just a stunt double with a role, HHH should stick to wrestling. This is one of the main mistakes while making this movie, some pretty piss poor casting choices.

The film feels more like a Nightstalkers movie then a Blade movie, Snipes takes a backseat to Renolds and Biel, which is a mistake. You do not take out your lead character to introduce some weak characters with no development.

This third installment takes a different stroll from the first two, when both of the first films open, it opens with a bang/shock, here we get a mediocre opener. With both of the first films, they end with a bang, here we get a soft wrap up, not the best way to end a great trilogy...well after this film, a mediocre trilogy.

It's hard to watch a film where the product placement is so utterly terrible, it takes you out of the experience. Once is good enough, but when they repeatedly beat it into you, you think to yourself STOP IT ALREADY and you can't focus on the story, well, what little story there is.

The fight scenes are terrible, thanks to bad choreography and editing. The final showdown between the legendary Dracula and Blade is a let down because you can't follow the action and if you can, it looks phony. Just one question, if Dracula turned around and stopped the first arrow from hitting him, why couldn't he do the same thing with the second....oh, she won't shoot again right?

It's sad to see a promising series take a turn for the worse, and the blade series follows the matrix as the third installment cannot hold a candle to the first two films, which brings down the whole camp. I would rather see BLADE end on a high note then a low one, but you got to stop while there is some dignity left. You know you're watching a bad film when the bad ass lead hero says 'coochie-coo'



5.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews Sussy, I think I will give Blade Trinity a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

LAYER CAKE (Matthew Vaughn)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/sony_pictures_classics/layer_cake/_group_photos/colm_meaney14.jpg\


"Cake is great to eat, but is it good to watch?"

Based on JJ Connelly's novel, "LAYER CAKE" is about a successful cocaine dealer, who plans an early retirement from the business. However, big boss Jimmy Price hands down a tough assignment: find Charlotte Ryder, the missing rich princess daughter of Edward, a powerful construction business player and gossip papers socialite. Complicating matters are two million pounds' worth of ecstasy, a brutal neo-Nazi sect and a whole series of double crossings.

Here is a british gangster movie that will automatically be compared to Guy Richie film's Snatch and Lack, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, even though this movie is something of it's own. Where Richie's films were more of a comedic tone, Layer Cake takes itself more seriously, which is why you must pay attention to what is shown to you on the screen.

Matthew Vaughn take special care with the translation to screen from JJ Connelly's novel. Here we see that he has an eye for great crime/gangster movies. One particular scene will stay in my mind as one of the most memorable scene's in any gangster movie. When Morty is beating the crap out of Frankie in the diner, while the music Ordinary World by Duran Duran is playing in the background. Beautiful camera work, editting, music all blending perfectly together to give you a raw emotional and jaw dropping scene.

The music throughout the entire film is perfectly suited for the style. Right from the begining we get "She Sells Sanctuary" with the guitar stringing cords played beautifully, the music prepares you for the intense film you are about to see. Every piece of music used in Layer Cake fits that scene perfectly, great ears were put to use here.

Colm Meaney plays the same type of character in a lot of movies, a pissed off "I can kill you whenever I want" attitude...and he pulls it off differently everytime. Daniel Craig, while I was introduced to him in Tomb Raider, shows what he can actually do in with his talent, and those freaky blue eyes. His character, who's name is never mentioned can be the next 007. The only thing that I didn't like about the his character, was that he fell in love with this girl, who he just met. To me that seemed rather sudden and random.

The movie's plot is cliched, a bad guy will do one last deal, before quitting, but gets pulled into a twisting plot of bad things. Yes, we've seen these bad thing happen before in numerous movies, but this movie pulls it off with style and shock value, I was "shocked" twice during this film.
When the sniper, out of no where gets sniped from Dragon. That was totally unexpected and worked so well. Of course the ending as well, which again comes out of nowhere. Ironic how throughout the whole movie XXXX believes that his job, dealing with drugs and what-not would be the reason behind him dying, and yet it's a woman. Not saying that he dies, this is left unanswered, he does get shot, be we never see him die, so his death is debated by the many fans of the film, who indeed hope for a sequel

What else is there to say besides the fact that this movie is not only stylish, but it's ultra cool. It's a different take on british crime from a Guy Richie movie, but a step up from the film Gangster No.1. Layer Cake take twists and turns left right and centre, and for once in a blue moon, they actually make sense. So pick it up, because this film has more then one layer to it itself.

8/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, I will keep my eye out for this one, I love English gangster movies. :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Bubba Ho-Tep (Don Coscarelli)

http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/031008/141448__bubba_l.jpg


"Bizzare, Original, Cult B Movie Goodness"

Bubba Ho-tep tells the story of what really did become of Elvis Presley. We find Elvis as an elderly resident in a rest home, who switched identities with an Elvis impersonator years before his "death", then missed his chance to switch back. Elvis teams up with Jack, a fellow nursing home resident who thinks that he is actually President John F. Kennedy, and the two old codgers sally forth to battle an evil 3,000 year old Egyptian entity who has chosen their long-term care facility as his happy hunting grounds.

If someone told me that I would be watching a movie about a pushing 60 year old Elvis in a rest home, battle a 3,000 year old mummy, with the help of a black JFK who believes that his part of his brain has been replaces with a bag of sand...I'd say your crazy. But as you can see, this film does indeed exist and as I'm about to tell you, you do indeed need to watch it. As crazy as the movie sounds, it works, and it works beautifully.

Bubba Ho-Tep has B movie written all over it, Bruce Campbell, named a B movie god by some, a cult movie director, the most bizarre story line and a limited budget. So placing it in the cult movie/ B movie category warrants it's fans somewhere, no matter how bad the movie, or in this case, how good a movie.

How would you classify this movie, is it a drama, a horror piece, comedy, or is it to be just classified as a B movie, well, it's hard to say because it manages to blend all these elements together so well. The limited budget only adds to the atmosphere and the intensity of the film. Throughout the first half of the movie, our hero, our main character, spends that time mostly in the comfort of his own bed. How can a movie pulls this off? Well, when you have an actor like Bruce Campbell, that may help. It's safe to say that this is Campbell's best movie performance of his career and in cinema. It's like Jamie Fox being Ray Charles, it's not Fox it's RAY, here it's not Campbell, it's Elvis, alive and well...well, alive anyways. To see the legend of Ossie Davis in one of his better roles was a treat and it's good to see that he had some gas left in the tank before he passed on.

Don Coscarelli handles this film like it's his own baby, unlike many directors who want to just shoot the film and go on to their next project (I'm looking your way Spielberg). Even though it is based off a book, it feels more like Don's creation then anything. It is clearly his best attempt at film making.

The film is surprisingly emotional, I for one wasn't ready for the ride that I was going for, who knew that two old timers could bring such excitement to the screen, such a rush, and such a good time. Many of you will be turned off by the movie because you don't want to sit through the speed of it, because it goes about as fast as Elvis does in a race. But you should at least give it a chance, right after Elvis gets up and moving, the story takes you to another place. The movie's theme song is powerful, and will fill you with a warm, cool, feeling that you can only get while listening to the theme music and seeing Elvis on the screen, it fits so well. Kudos to Brian Tyler.

Check this movie out, if not for the acting, or directing, or the music, which is all top notch, check it out because it's so bizarre and original. It's a film that doesn't fit into the Hollywood cookie-cutter blend, and this is one kind of film that we need to see more of.


8/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review, I have it on my "Fetch Movies" list, I can't wait till it comes :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Dead & Breakfast (Matthew Leutwyler)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/b137411.jpg


"Surprise Gore, Surprise Laughs, Surprise Fun"

Six friends on a road trip to their friends wedding stop for the night at a Bed and Breakfast in the town of Lovelock. After a night that leaves both the Inn's owner and chef dead, the gang finds themselves under suspicion by the local Sheriff. But when one of the friends accidentally knock over and ancient artifact, it possess the living. Soon all of the town's quirky residents become possessed by an evil spirit and pin down the friends inside the B&B.

This film surprised me a great deal, When I saw it at the video store, I thought to myself, another straight to video horror movie crap feast. Then I saw the cast and what it was about and I was interested, I mean...it's Bill himself David Carradine as the In's owner and the low-budget actor Jeremy Sisto, so I figure, oh, it should be decent or just a laugh. This film surprises the viewer as it showers you in gore and hits you with laughs.

The film "steals" or homages, how ever you look at it, from so many classic and modern horror movies. For this film it turned out to be a good thing, that's if you like such films as Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead (remake), Night of the Living Dead, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, dead-alive and so on.

The film delievers on the laughs, it has a very Shaun of the Dead feel to it, although it by no means ever reaches that level of greatness. Whereas Shaun is funny throughout the entire film, this movie is pretty boring until we encounter the "possessed" townfolk in the bar brawl scene. From there the movie definitly picks up momentum, the blood splashes across the screen left right and centre, it's no Dead-Alive by any means, but for the gore fan out there, you'll be satisfied. It's clear that the budget went towards the gore scenes in the film.

Some jokes hit while others miss, or just drag on too long...Slipping on the blood has been done, why do it again and go on and on for 3 minutes of it. The zombies...or possessed townsfolk decide to do a little dance number for us ala THRILLER.

There are little bits and parts that carry us to the next scene, whether it turns into a graphic novel to lead us into the next scene, or a hick playing his guitar singing about what just happened, slows the movie down, takes away from it's funny value and leans towards a "we are trying too hard" face.

Should I discuss the acting and directing...well,what is there to discuss? Carradine has about 5 minutes screen time, that is dissappointing and some characters die way too quickly. The direction..well, there is nothing here that shows me that this guy will break out into something that will blow us away, or that we will ever hear about him again.

The film could have gone on for a little bit longer, it seemed to me that it was a bit too anti-climatic. Throughout the film we are having a great time with all the blood and guts and homemade boomsticks, but there is no real final showdown. There is a little bit of suspense with one of the female characters who's alone in the house with nothing but a chainsaw when all hell breaks lose...but the hell doesn't break lose as much as we want it too.

7/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the interesting review http://bestsmileys.com/violent/20.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

Freddy VS Jason (Ronny Yu)

http://www.lightviews.com/images/freddy_versus_jason_photo.JPG

"Neither Freddy, or Jason, or the Audience Win In This Film"

Two of the most notable slasher film icons finally clash together on film. Trapped in Hell and powerless because no kid fears him, Freddy Krueger comes across the equally infamous Camp Crystal Lake slasher, Jason Voorhees. Tricking him into killing the residents of Springwood, in hopes for the name of Kreuger spreading, so that he can become the feared dream killer again. When plans go wrong and Jason starts killing all Freddy's victims, it becomes a showdown of horror icons as they battle for the championship of horror.

Fans of each slasher genre have been waiting for this showdown ever since the claws of Freddy burst out through the ground and dragged Jason's mask into hell with him. That was ten years ago, so can a film with hype lasting over ten years be able to please both fans of Nightmare and Friday?

Much like any versus movie, you have to please both fans of the genre. So when you go into this movie you get the feeling that there will be no clear cut winner, you don't want to get thousands of hate mail from all the Nightmare fans, or vice versa. So the ending will be a cop-out and have the fans debate over the real winner until the sequel comes out. Much like Aliens Versus Predator, we the audience get cheated as the two main characters, Freddy and Jason have to put up with stupid pointless characters...everyone else in the film.

In reality Freddy Versus Jason is only a ten minute film, those ten minutes come at the very end of the movie, where it is actually freddy fighting jason. We unfortunatly have to sit through the same old cliched horror crap that we've been fed years and years before. In hopes for something new in this film, having two different horror icons battle it out, we get 80 minutes of boring, cliched, crap and ten minutes of kick ass, edge of your seat cheering at the screen fun. My advice, see it with a friend and as them to wake you up when they are in the burning cabin.

What is it with the new wave of horror films that must have a singer in it for no apparent reason, it started off with LL COOL J in H20 and Busta Rhymes in Halloween Ressurection, now the Myers virus has infect both Freddy and Jason as we get Kelly Rowland give her first and let's hope, only performance on the big screen. I also believe that Kevin Smith should sue, for stealing the character of Jay, it seems that they are stretching for comic relief now. A tip for the sequel, more screen time for the icons, and less of the victims, we all know how it's going to end, so just give us what we want.

To me it felt like they tried to make Jason are hero in this movie, more sympathy went his way, even the victims of the movie joined his side, to me that shows weakness in his character, he needed help to "win" the fight...and I use that term very losely. Krueger on the other hand is more sadistic in his killings and this movie is more about him. When you walk into this movie, you obviously will pick a side in the battle, but at the end, both sides will feel the same, disappointment. Are the boring useless 80 minutes worth the money for the great ten minutes at the end? Well, I'll let you be the judge of that.

5.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 (Victor Salva)

http://movies.radiofree.com/reviews/images/jeepers2_02.jpg


"A New Horror Monster Chokes After One Sequel"

Set a few days after the original, a championship basketball team's bus is attacked by The Creeper, the winged, flesh-eating terror, on the last day of his 23-day feeding frenzy.

The story opens in a corn field as a boy is doing his chores tending to the scarecrows and what not, which aren't working very well. Suddenly, out of the corner of his eyes, he sees one of the Scarecrows move... Not too subtly by the creeper we find out later... Why is it in horror movies, they just stand their like a dummy waiting for the thing to take off for them? Isn't this suppose to be the new millenium for horror?

I actually liked the first film better, in terms of horror, because Jeepers Creepers 2 is practically absent with the element of horror. Instead, it is replaced with a fair amount of action scenes. The film's story is more than the typical monster movie, and it avoids the typical cliché of a sequel that's that same as the first. The plot is almost completely redone, but still isn't that good. The greatest part of the film, is the villian, The Creeper, but when I saw those blue eyes (Didn't darry have brown?) I laughed. Mostly throughout the entire movie I was laughing, but not with it, more of the at it manner.

Also what was with the flying, way too much flying, and in some scenes it looked like he flew off into space. Whether it was just poorly done CGI, or it was called for in the script, do we really need to be looking at it? The script is loaded with stupid clichés, unneeded moments, the clichéd and stereotypical characters, and cheesy moments. There really isn't a main character in the movie, liked the first film.

The first film had two main characters, but this one does not. Like I said, the film has unneeded moments, such as the character of Minxie learning the origins of the creepers. The sub plot revolves around a farmer who is on a personal mission to hunt down and kill the Creeper because it took his son. The corn field scene was entertaining, especially when the Creeper was on the scarecrow stand. Also, this is a horror movie, and it has little or no blood whatsoever. What's the deal, you'd expect a movie about a creature who devours bodily organs to have some gore. The most graphic scene was when a teen had his head completely ripped off after the wing of the Creeper trapped him inside it. The scene wasn't bloody, or violent. The Creeper's make-up looks a little cartoonish, but still maintains that style.

I have to give the film props for the head scene though, great stuff from the creepers, ripping off it's own head then growing back another one. Then again the movie also pissed me off with half the teens running away then never being heard from again. Did the writer just simply forget about them, how can you forget a dozen or so characters? The truck being trashed up beyond belief, then saving the day in the next scene. When the truck exploded, did the driver die or not?? I remember him climbing out and crawling away, but then nothing, so I'm just going to assume he bit the dust. The creeper chasing the black guy with only one leg, pathetic. Like I mentioned before too much flying, and too much of the creeper. He should of kept his mystic...or little that he had left from the original.

This movie was more action/suspense/comedy then horror. I only remember jumping at one scene, the dream scene with DARRY. Now that were on that subject, the dream sequences were too unbelievable. Why is she having them??? How does she know everything about the creeper after she knows it eats people?

All the characters I hated and wanted to die, no one in this movie can act.With the exception of the father, who gave an average performance, but when average is a highlight, you know your in a bad film. Also what was with that part with the knife flying out of the fathers hand like that. Still don't understand that one.

4/10

[nebbit]

Umm may give this one a miss :yup: thanks for the review :D

[Darth Stujitzu]

Just been catching up on Mofo, nice reviews, seems we have similar tastes in films, good reviews on Layer Cake, Oldboy and Bubba Ho Tep, all of which I really enjoyed, as for Jeepers Keepers 2, the less said the better!
Hopefully after this week, I'll have some time to review some movies, so keep up the good work for all us Mofo slackers!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Inside Deep Throat (Fenton Bailey & Randy Barbato)


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2005/06/09/DeepThroat372.jpg


"A sexual revolution phenomenon in 1972"

The most successful independently-produced movie ever made, bringing in a worldwide gross of $600 million on a budget of just $25,000. The documentary will not focus on the specifics of 'Deep Throat' as a movie necessarily, but will examine the reasons it was such a cultural sensation. Breaking down new barriers and helping establish pornography as a big business.

Ever since the film DEEP THROAT came out, porn has never been the same again, and I for one am thankful. What made this film so different from the other pornographic videos? Well, it was groundbreaking, as the title suggests the female takes the penis and takes it whole, not only were audiences shocked, but so was the men behind the law and they did what they believe they had to to shut this film down, as we see now with it's gross of 600 million worldwide, they were unsuccessful.

Call it art, call it obscene, but you have to admit it is interesting. Inside Deep Throat showcases the lives that this movie destroyed, the star, the director and the actor. Unfortunatly for this film, the interests wears off half way through the movie, right after the actual act is seen on the screen. The comedy wears thin after the unbelievably funny hitler-cat scene. It's tragic to hear what happened to the Star of the film, but unclear about her decisions in why she chose to boycott porn, then do it again. The main sympathy goes to Harry Reems who was unjustly targeted by everyone because the others were not to be harmed.

Dennis Hopper narrates us through the history of what happened during the success and controversy of the film. We see the views of some notorious figures in the business such as Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, John Waters, Bill Maher and Camille Paglia to name a select few.

The final 10 to 15 minutes of the film seemed rushed through the editting in order to stay in that 90 minute time frame. Whether the movie was made for a thought-provoking manner, or just for the fact that the filmmakers wanted to see if they could make money off another successful film, and have fun while doing it if you know what I mean.


6/10

[nebbit]

I saw Deep Throat many many many years ago :yup: Linda is the girl :yup: thanks for the review :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Corpse Bride (Tim Burton & Mike Johnson)


http://www.spawn.com/toys/movies/cb3inch/deadbox1/images/cb3inch_deadbox1_photo_01_lg.jpg

"Relies more on visually pleasing the audience"


Victor messed up his vows during a wedding rehearsal, and is traveling through the woods, reciting his vows. He stops to rest in the woods,and while practicing, he gets them right and puts his wedding ring on a finger-shaped stick in the ground and says his wedding vows. The stick turns out to be a rotted finger belonging to a murdered girl, who returns as a zombie and insists that she is now Victor's lawfully wedded wife.

When seeing this film, one will make the connection to The Nightmare Before Christmas, which is unfair in the sense that they are two totally different films, only similar in the animation. Leave it to Tim Burton to take us inside his "cooky-artist" head to bring us the beautiful Corpse Bride.

Technically, Corpse Bride is ahead of the race in every sense of the word. Lightyears ahead of NBC in terms of style, with quirky characters bug eyes and legs as thin as toothpicks. Stop-motion animation is a form that should be more explored in film. Corpse Bride unfortunatly relies too heavily on it's animation and strays away from it's story.

It seems the motivation of the main character, to fall in love with this corpse is a little hard to follow. At first, he's terrified of her, then wants to run and hide from her, then falls in love with her and will die for her...but loves someone else in the end. Corpse Bride takes all these emotions throws them into a blender and hits the ultra mix button. This leaves the viewer with an awkward feeling at the end towards our so called hero.

Okay, so it is a kids movie, so harping on the emotional value could be unfair. But Depp as the lead offers nothing to the movie, which his character always looking shocked, we get Depp voicing it all whimpy. It's good to see the other cast members giving their voices more range, I mean when you hear Christopher Lee's voice as the towns Pastor it's so deep and recognizable that anyone can notice. Helena Bonham Carter does the best with her incredible singing talent and voiced with alot of depth and emotion.

Danny Elfman's score, along with every other Burton movie, takes the film to another level. With surprise musical numbers, which aren't too aparent in films these days. It takes you back to those old Disney films.

Seeing the underworld, so vibrant and alive, and seeing the living world, so dreadful and dead, it makes you wonder who's really who in this world. Seeing the two at opposite ends is a feast for the eyes, which is what many people will see this movie for. If you're looking for great animation and musical numbers, then Corpse Bride is the film for you, other-wise the story is kinda of dead.

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi)

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/280/1008/320/spiderman-2-05.jpg

"Spider-Man 2, Better Than The First, On Numerous Levels"

Peter Parker can't seem to catch a break. Being Spiderman has brought him nothing but problems as far as his personal life is concerned. Not only that, Mary Jane is engaged to astronaut John Jameson, and Peter may lose her forever. Things are so bad for him he decides that he doesn't want to be Spiderman anymore. Then a freak accident transforms Dr. Otto Octavius into Dr. Octopus. Peter realizes that only Spiderman can stop him, but of course, problems arise. Mary Jane gets caught in the middle, and Harry Osborn, who still blames Spiderman for the death of his father, wants him dead.

Sam Raimi being the Spider-Man fan that he is, finally is able to treat the audience with a superhero movie to be remembered. Spider Man 2 goes down in history as one of those sequels that is able to out due it's predecessor.

The sequel improves on so many things that were wrong in the original, here the actors are finally comfortable in their roles, like Kristen, I didn't believe her in the first one, but this one I did. She was able to showcase her emotions more and the chemistry was there. Franco's character and performance was over-the-top. But Franco uses this to his advantage and pulls it of. Alfred Molina stole the show in this film, he was Doc Ock, perfect villain and perfect for the role. McGuire is now Spider-Man, whereas in the original, we only saw him as the nerdy Peter Parker, it took him two tries, but he finally nailed it.

I loved how it went all Evil Dead in the doctor scene, with the people screaming, then out of nowhere BOOM, chainsaw, classic Sam Raimi and a great homage to his best film to date. But who can forget the Bruce Campbel cameo, and Hal sparks of course. Was there too much comedy??? well, I'm 50/50 on that, the one scene that everyone seemed to hate, but I loved would be the "Rain drops keep falling on my head"

The little freeze at the end had my laughing, because it's Sam Raimi, he knows how to handle comedy for perfect situations. Although there was too much comedy from Peter and not enough from Spidey...I only recall one comedic thing said from Spidey, to Doc Ock in the bank...something along the lines of "Here's your change", then throws money at him. Where is the friendly neighborhood Spidey we all grew up with and love.

The train fight is one of the best action sequences I've ever seen. I was waiting for him arms to rip out of their sockets when he was trying to stop the train from crashing over the edge. The CGI is a big improvement here, it's not all goofy comic book looking, here we see a man swing from building to building, anybody notice the costume looks darker in the CGI moments, maybe it was just me but it does.

One gripe with the villain...not enough screen time. I wanted to see more of him, but whenever he's on the screen, you know it's good. It's clear that Molina is the scene stealer here.

The film though was a little lengthy, they could of taken out a "swinging moment" here and there, those were all over the place. Raimi ends the movie perfectly, setting up the third installment, with the look of "Am I doing the right thing?" on MJ's face. Nice homage to The Graduate. Raimi flushes this film full of classic homages, whether it's from his own, or just classic films like King Kong, they always add a nice touch of coolness to the film.

This is one of the better superhero movies out there, the fans of Spider-Man will enjoy and the movie goer will be entertained, this is a winner in my books

8/10

[ObiWanShinobi]

^^^
Barf

2/10 IMO

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews Sussie :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

BATMAN BEGINS (Christopher Nolan)

http://www.cinepop.com.br/fotos/batman1_10.jpg


"Batman Makes His Dark and True Return"


As a young boy, Bruce Wayne watched in horror as his parents were killed right in front of him, which leads him to become obsessed with revenge. Leaving Gotham, Bruce Wayne seeks counsel with the dangerous but honorable ninja cult leader Ra's Al-Ghul, Bruce returns to his now decaying Gotham City, which is overrun by organized crime. The discovery of a cave under his mansion, along with a prototype armored suit, leads him to assume a new persona, one which will strike fear into the hearts of men who do wrong; he becomes Batman.

What the makers of Batman Begins wanted to do was to make the audience forget about those Bat Nipples, those bright neon streets and horrible puns made by horribly casted villains. Nolan and co have not only brought the franchise back to life by obliterating Schumachers version, but to some have out-done Burtons classic Gothic original.

Written by David. S. Goyer and under the direction of Nolan, who has done no wrong in the directing chair, Batman becomes what he originally was in the comic books. With this new fresh start we see how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, and in doing so, we get a more human and round character of Batman, unlike in the former series. More true to the comic books then Burtons and more entertaining then Schumachers, this Batman is able to regain the fans it once lost...and gain some new ones.

Nolan doesn't throw action at us from the start like the latter films do, it takes it's time to build up emotion and the character of Bruce Wayne. For those who actually did enjoy Schumachers mess, will find this movie a tad slow and boring, because Bale doesn't become Batman till half way through the picture. It's safe to say that the best Bruce Wayne is Bale hands down, he is able to bring both characteristics from Keaton's and Kilmer's style, to make this Bruce Wayne perfect. While some may not be digging the whole Batman voice, it's actually more true to the comics then the others have done. Batman is suppose to have a dark harsh voice.

Some of the fight sequences were hard to follow are not all that entertaining, the two that pop into my mind would be the first fight in the prison, the editing is so fast and the camera is too close up for people to actually see what's going on. The second fight sequence is when Batman goes into the city and fights the "henchmen" ninjas, it seemed to slow paced and not hard hitting enough. Other then that, the action sequences were very entertaining and for the most part, better then the other Batman films. The Batmobile chase scene is a sensation for the eyes to watch.

This Batman film has the best performances of any other, Bale is the new Bruce Wayne/Batman and he knows what works and what doesn't. Murphy is delightfully evil and eccentric in his performance of The Scarecrow, this is the best performance in the film. Murphy is an underrated actor, who will eventually get more and more recognition. Oldman is one of the best bad guy actors, so seeing him in a new refreshing role really shows his diversity. Neeson is able to show his experience through this role, he acts as a teacher to the others in his performance. He knows what to do and gets to the point. Wilkinson, with his little screen time, is able to stand out as a high point. Good performances all around from Freeman, Cain and Hauer.

Now, I was a huge fan of the old Alfred and the new one seems a little to energetic to me, Cain was good, but I just got the sense of miscasting here. I can see the role being played by an unknown actor and it would have worked better. Katie Holmes of course was a weak point, her character seemed to have no emotional attachment/chemistry with Bruce Wayne, and Holmes to Bale for that matter. She is so out of place in this style of film, and Wantanabe basically stands there and says a couple lines, nothing more.

The film is a great restart for a new franchise, which is undoubtedly going to get better and better with such villains as The Joker and The Riddler, hopefully done right this time. With the great cast and director in the same positions, I see BATMAN on a scale higher then that of Spiderman and X-men.

8/10

[adidasss]

nice reviews man...

[TheUsualSuspect]

thank you:D

[ObiWanShinobi]

This Batman film has the best performances of any other, Bale is the new Bruce Wayne/Batman and he knows what works and what doesn't. Murphy is delightfully evil and eccentric in his performance of The Scarecrow, this is the best performance in the film. Murphy is an underrated actor, who will eventually get more and more recognition. Oldman is one of the best bad guy actors, so seeing him in a new refreshing role really shows his diversity. Neeson is able to show his experience through this role, he acts as a teacher to the others in his performance. He knows what to do and gets to the point. Wilkinson, with his little screen time, is able to stand out as a high point. Good performances all around from Freeman, Cain and Hauer.


Bale was a muscle man that didn't impress as Wayne nor look good in a bat costume.

Cillian Murphy's character is flat and weak to scarecrow's original story line. Cillian Murphy's worst performance I've ever seen.

Oldman played a character anyone could be, versatile yes, but not any better than anyone else could do.

Neeson was pretty good, although his character was unconvincing in the script, Neeson's acting compensated.

Morgan Freeman was the big name black man, Michael Cain was too little alfred and more Michael Cain.

And, while you may disagree with me on any point, how DARE you surmount a compliment for Rutger Hauer who's face was in the movie thrice and didn't do jack for the story. He was a worthless individual to watch. So, no "good" performance by him if it could've been done in 5 minutes by a 3 year old who can type on an amiga.

[TheUsualSuspect]

how DARE you surmount a compliment for Rutger Hauer

It's called an opinion.....so I do dare.

I do agree with your Cain comment, and Freeman, but still not bad at all.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Mindhunters (Renny Harlin)

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/m/images/mindhunters-3.jpg


"Relies on twists and turns when the star power leave"

On a remote island, the FBI has a training program for their psychological profiling division, called "Mindhunters", used to track down serial killers. The training goes horribly wrong, however, when a group of seven young agents discover that one of them is a serial killer, and is setting about slaying the others through elaborate traps. Each death is predicted at a certain time and the 7 profiling agents have to wait till their time comes.

Here is a film that looks to have it all, a great cast, a director that can deliever thrills, a pretty good premise, and a mystery/who is the killer style type ending. Well, looks can be decieving as only half of this is true. Harlin is able to deliever the shocks and thrills that he wanted to, but in the end, it hurt the film more then it did good.

Val Kilmer is an actor who would choose more interesting roles, then basic money grabbers, even Batman Forever would classify as an interesting role, as BATMAN, until schumacher...but here in mindhunters we get Kilmer for a mere 15 minutes. In that short time span he does manage to own the screen giving a good performance to something so little. Slater is another big name actor attached to this thriller that doesn't last long, one can only assume that these two actors needed some cash fast and did a quick gig here to fulfill the need.

Once these two highlights of the film are gone, the only person known to the major audience would be LL Cool J, who you know will survive because it's LL cool J. Seeing Slater killed off so early is a shock to the audience and is basically a way of saying that anything can happen to these characters at anytime, know you're left with no name actors to watch...watch them all die.

Harlin keeps us interested in the story as the killer leaves a watch with a time set on it, which indicates at what time the next person is going to die. We have no clue who and no clue how, but what we do know is that it will be some kind of contraption. Much like the jigsaw killer, the victims are put in these inescapable predicaments.

The ending to the film is the downfall, it could have been a tighter ending. It may take a second viewing to understand what happens, not because it's a confusing story, but they way they presented it to the viewer was confusing. If Harlin were able to better explain the situation and not just try to make the audience believe one thing for the sake of a shock/twist, then Mindhunter could have been a great thriller, but with it's flaws and misleads, it falls a couple feet short of goodness. It still stands as a popcorn flick to enjoy, and not think too hard about when it wants you to.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

ENVY (Barry Levinson)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/envy/_group_photos/amy_poehler2.jpg

"They should have used VA-POO-RIZE on this turd"


Tim and Nick, best friends, neighbors and co-workers, whose equal footing is suddenly tripped up when one of Nick's get-rich-quick schemes actually succeeds: Vapoorize, a spray that literally makes dog crap, or any other kind for that matter, evaporate into thin air. Tim, who had scoffed at Nick's idea and passed on an opportunity to get in on the deal, can only watch as Nick's fortune and Tim's own envy grow to equally outrageous proportions.

When you hear of a movie that stars two comedic power houses such as Jack Black and Ben Stiller, a gifted director, Barry Levinson, and the one and only Mr. Christpoher Walken, you'd think that it would make for a sure fire hit. Unfortunatly, we get a film that is so utterly horrible that it had to be publically apologized for.

Alot of Ben Stiller movies are the same, he'll play a loser (Envy), a weirdo (Zoolander/dodgeball) or a bad things happen to him guy (Meet the Parents/There's something about mary). But when put into the right cast and with the right creative team, you can find a success with him (Royal Tenenbaums). Why couldn't the creative team behind ENVY pull off another hit for Stiller, well the main problem would be the fact that it is not funny.

The only funny parts of the film, come from a guy that gets shot with an arrow, then probably walked off the set. Walken is the only redeeming factor in this trash. Weisz and Stiller have no connection and are not believable as a married couple. Jack Black tries the best he could with the material written, but there is only so far that one man can go....he goes nowhere.

Levinson should have sensed from the beginning that this wasn't going to fly and bail, same with the cast, but they thought that they could pull it off because hey, we got two funny guys in one movie here. Straight from the beginning it throws useless stupid jokes at you "Don't taste my pants." It's delivery isn't the best either.

When you have yourself a comedy with big names attached, you would think that someone somewhere would at least try to make it funny, in one little bit. The dialogue is terrible, at no point do any of these jokes hit the nail on the head. Walken is only funny because he is Walken. The way he speaks, the tone of his voice, his delivery makes the character what he is, not what the poor written dialogue is.

This turd is so bad, that it didn't even take the worst movie of 2004 spot. That's was the crapfest CATWOMAN, at least for CATWOMAN is can say that it was the worst movie of 2004, ENVY has absolutely nothing to say for itself. If any movie is to make you want your money back, hit your head on a table and would make you rather watch a piece of crap float around in a toilet bowl, ENVY is it.

1/10

[Darth Stujitzu]

I can't believe somebody else has seen Mindhunters!
We seem to have similar views on the film, although I forgot to mention how bad Johnny Lee Miller's American accent was in my review.
Again, I think this was potentially a good idea for a film, but it lets itself down by trying too hard to be clever and throw some early curveballs ( i.e. Slater's short stint ), and yes the ending was a mish-mash, again trying to throw one too many twists.
As for Batman Begins, I really liked the film, Bale has brought more depth to Bruce Wayne/Batman than any of the other actors, but I realised whilst watching the film at the time that it would be one of these films that you either love or hate.
A more intelligent superhero film firmly based in reality, indeed Nolan himself see's Batman as a James Bond type character as well as a superhero. I liked the fact that all his gadgets were feasibly explained, and even the fear inducing toxin was a more realistic foe for Batman to tackle.

Good reviews as always, keep it up! ( ooooooooooh-er )

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great reviews Suspect :yup:

[ObiWanShinobi]

As for Batman Begins, I really liked the film, Bale has brought more depth to Bruce Wayne/Batman than any of the other actors, but I realised whilst watching the film at the time that it would be one of these films that you either love or hate.
A more intelligent superhero film firmly based in reality, indeed Nolan himself see's Batman as a James Bond type character as well as a superhero. I liked the fact that all his gadgets were feasibly explained, and even the fear inducing toxin was a more realistic foe for Batman to tackle.

Good reviews as always, keep it up! ( ooooooooooh-er )

Christian Bale was not complex or deep. He was psychologically shattered from an incident that had his parents killed in front of him. He wants revenge, characters around him say no, the script gets hypocritical. Predictable and not very deep. Their was no depth, merely a storyline that was written before it ever hit the paper.

A more intelligent superhero film based in reality? How does that make it more intelligent? Is fantasy and science fiction stupid? I find that comment quite insulting, especially with a story as simplistic as batman begins. Fantasy and Science Fiction can be deeper/complex than any realistic movie because of the barriers that can be broken. I found the realism to be gritty, not more intelligent, Solaris is a science fiction/fantasy type movie and it is possibly the most intelligent and deep psychological movies I've ever seen. Realistic does not equate to more intelligent.

James Bond Type: Nolan can do what he wants, but his characters mish mashed. At one time I thought it was the dark knight, at another I thought it was the detective, and another I thought it was the caped crusader. This would be cool if they all fleshed out, but they didn't, in my mind, and it just ended up being something never seen, but something NOT interesting.

I think it's cool you think every area of batman's technology had to be explained and then not used.

But what I think is cool is when Batman uses his gadgets, and with style. End of batman anyone? He goes in his bat plane, makes a symbol on the moon, drops down through the city, nukes the hell out of the joker, joker then proceeds to fire one pistol shot at batman and send him crashing to the ground. All this happening to a danny elman mastery of music.

So, while Batman Begins may be more realistic and more "dark", it doesn't have style, the story is flat, and everyone over acts to be more noir like when a movie like batman is noir from the get go.

More intelligent? Please.

[Darth Stujitzu]

Thanks once again for enlightening me, you really are the master of all things film!
This site allows people to express their opinions, we won't all like and agree with each other, but I find your tone insulting, the batplane against the moon, how cheesy, were you over the moon when Schumaker added bat nipples?
As for Solaris, I prefer the original, as stated, we all have opinions.
Perhaps I should run all my future post and threads by you, especially as you seem to hold yourself in such high regard.

[TheUsualSuspect]

As for Solaris, I prefer the original, as stated,

WTF??? Solaris?????

[Darth Stujitzu]

Yeah, didn't think the Soderbergh/Clooney effort was as good as the original.
However, it's all about opinions, good or bad!

[adidasss]

I can't believe somebody else has seen Mindhunters!
We seem to have similar views on the film, although I forgot to mention how bad Johnny Lee Miller's American accent was in my review.

really? i thought he did such an exellent job in hackers that i was actually blown away when i found out he was scottish.....

[ObiWanShinobi]

Thanks once again for enlightening me, you really are the master of all things film!.

I don't try.

This site allows people to express their opinions, we won't all like and agree with each other, but I find your tone insulting,
!.

I found your statement about "a more intelligent" batman pretty insulting as well.

the batplane against the moon, how cheesy, were you over the moon when Schumaker added bat nipples?
!.

How wrong of my to suggest that Batman Begin's self righteous and cliche romp through a percieved darnkess could not be the perfect treatment to inventive fantasy (batplane on the moon, not the nipples).

As for Solaris, I prefer the original, as stated, we all have opinions.
!.

Ok?

Perhaps I should run all my future post and threads by you, especially as you seem to hold yourself in such high regard.

Only if you want wit, humor, and logic.

[Darth Stujitzu]

Yes you're right, because I'm sure you have so much experience, wisdom and wit crammed into your 16 years!
Man, why am I arguing with someone who is blatantly copying someone elses views on Batman Begins?
Come back when you have your own opinions, and you might want to look up plagirism in the dictionary!


P.S. there is an argument relocation thread if you want to continue, I was going to take off the kid-gloves, but I guess I might have to keep them on!!!

[ObiWanShinobi]

Yes you're right, because I'm sure you have so much experience, wisdom and wit crammed into your 16 years!!!!
That's 16 more years experience in movies than you.

Man, why am I arguing with someone who is blatantly copying someone elses views on Batman Begins?
Come back when you have your own opinions, and you might want to look up plagirism in the dictionary!


Clearly, because a person watches the same bad movie, with the same bad acting, with the same hypocritical plot, and the same suckiness whenever they comment on it they are CLEARLY copying off of someone else's opinion. BUT, when someone praises Batman Begins as the end all and be all of existence THEY are original in their thoughts AND NOT following the stupid dissenters!

And guess the **** what, it's plagiarism, mutha****er!

P.S. there is an argument relocation thread if you want to continue, I was going to take off the kid-gloves, but I guess I might have to keep them on!!!

When the smoke rises I will stamp your carcass with the bat symbol.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I just thought the Solaris comment was random.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy (Garth Jennings)


http://www.cineramabios.nl/films/595.jpg


"Don't Panic...Guide is an acquired taste"


When Arthur Dent learns that a friend of his is actually an alien with advanced knowledge of Earth's destruction, he is transported off the Earth seconds before it is exploded to make way for a new hyperspace motorway. And as if that's not enough, throw in being wanted by the police, Earth II, an insane electronic encyclopedia, no tea whatsoever, a chronically depressed robot and the search for the meaning of life, and you've got the greatest adventure off Earth.

What is the meaning of life, that is the ultimate question that men seek and in Guide, we get an answer. Unfortunatly we don't understand the question. Although for now on i'll by more attention to the number 42.

Guide is full of british humour, which to some is not funny and don't get it, but to others is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In guide, it lies somewhere in between. Right from the beginning we see dolphins singing, because they know that the end is coming, and before the earth is destroyed, the dolphins are saved. Funny? Well, I guess it all depends on your sense of humour.

In Guide it's the zany off-beat way it presents itself that makes it what it is. Whether the main character become yarn or flowers, you look at the screen with an odd questionable feeling. You don't know what's going on and ask yourself are you actually watching this taking place on screen? The quirky zany off-beat style is littered throughout this film, and if you can appreciate it and like it, then you'll enjoy yourself a lot better, other-wise this film is just a treat for the eyes.

The film has lots of unique visuals, I especially liked the team re-creating Earth II. Whether it be filling up the ocean or painting the mountains. All seeing this fly by on a train type creation. This is all happening after you fly through the galaxy on this small little thing.

When you have to stay true to the source, you have many people that will be judgemental. Especially since you have to cram so much material into a 110 minute film. I never read the books, so I can't tell you how true to it the film is. I can tell you that there are alot of inside jokes from the book though, which will either hit or miss, depending on if your a fan or not.

Sam Rockwell stole the show as the president of the galaxy. He brings a unique style to every role that he does, and here is no different. When you let Rockwell go over-the-top and have fun with his character, you know he will go to the extreme. In guide we see him having so much fun with the material that you beg for him to be on the screen more.

Jennings had the hard task of taking on this immense epic, since this his first outting, I have to say he did a good job. If Guide had an more established director behind the camera, it could have been in the style of Lord of the Rings. But what we get here is just a fun good time, nothing wrong with that either, but when the movie is direct with it's intentions it shouldn't be all fun and games.

7/10

[adidasss]

i didn't want to watch it seeing as how i read bad reviews and i read the first book ( i'm gonna do the others to )

[Darth Stujitzu]

Felt really let down by Hitchhikers, I loved the tv show in the 80's, although it hasn't aged well.
Sam Rockwell was the highlight of the movie for me, I do like him as an actor, always watchable, but ultimately Hitchhikers didn't push the right buttons for me ( and I was brought up on British Humour!!! )
Personally I felt the film tried too hard for the Wow factor, and as such something was lost in the process, however, the guy in the next row had the most annoying fake laugh throughout the whole movie, and try as I might it did make it hard to concentrate fully on the film ( lucky for him, I'd taken my chill-pills and he didn't end up wearing his popcorn!!! )

[nebbit]

I wasn't that impressed with the movie, thanks for your review. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

House of Wax (Jaume Collet-Serra)


http://www.canmag.com/images/front/movies2005/houseofwax1.jpg


"Admit It, You Wanted To See Hilton Die Too"


A group of friends on their way to a college football game falls prey to a pair of murderous brothers in an abandoned small town. They discover that the brothers have expanded upon the area's main attraction... the House of Wax. And created an entire town filled with the wax-coated corpses of unlucky visitors. Now the group must find a way out before they too become permanent exhibits in the House of Wax...

Chalk up another film for the remake list of classic horror movies. Although in this installment, there is a lack of one, Vincent Price. Instead we get who todays teenagers think are hot. If Paris Hilton running across the screen in her underwear is what hollywood deems as a horror movie these days, then we are in trouble.

When you think of a teen horror movie you think of a bunch of kids who get lost and are killed by a pyscho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of 1,000 corpses and so on. House of Wax is no different in that sense of the word, but it does stand out from the rest of the bunch. Serra is able to keep suspense throughout this film, whereas other seem to fizzle out.

Wax doesn't throw horror at us from the start, instead it takes a good 30 some odd minutes before we get the scares that we would expect. Serra manages to slowly get the creepy feeling into the viewer, as we see the town and get the errie feeling from that very moment we see it.

Chad Micheal Murray and Elisha Cuthbert lead the cast in every sense of the word, as they are the only watchable characters. Jon Abrahams has too little screen time to make an impression. Of course Paris Hilton nails the role perfectly, because she is infact that in real life, so there is no stretch for her. For us, or at least speaking for myself, she was only eye-candy. When she bites the dust, and eventually they all do, minus the leads (come on it's a horror movie, you had to see it coming) I got a warm feeling of satisfaction.

The one villian, Vincent, obvious ode to Price, was quite creepy, with his long black hair and wax face. A Micheal Myers type feel to it, for the new wave of horror movies.

The gore is here and it is good, we actually see it up on the screen. Too many horror movies feel the need to cut away right before and only show the characters reaction, in order to get the PG-13...here we get Serra using the R title to it's extent.

The film tries to hard with it's "shocking" ending, but one can see it coming from the very start, which brings the film down because it does take itself seriously. If it had a little bit more fun with itself, then the camp could have settled in and we would have enjoyed ourselves a lot more.

The climax of the film has the House of Wax melting with our killers and teen like characters in it. I was impressed with the whole execution of it, it worked really well while keeping the suspense and horror. Although in the end, Wax just passes by as another teen remake of an old classic horror film, this will be forgotten, even if it's better then the trash that it's forgotten with.

5.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

UNDEAD (The Spierig Brothers)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/undead/mungo_mckay/undead1.jpg


"In The Style Of Bad Taste, UNDEAD Is Pure Camp"

In Berkeley, Australia, a meteor shower transforms the locals into flesh eating zombies. Wityh the zombie population growing a group of survivals must fight against the zombies and try to escape to another town. However, they find out that there is more to this zombie chaos then meets the eye.

When you watch a film that has zombie fish jump out and attack someone. You can't take the film seriously...especially when the person punches the fish back to the ground. UNDEAD tells you this from the start, with it's goofy death scenes and pure camp feel.

The Spierig brothers, wrote, directing, edited, and did all the special effects for this film, on a limited budget. It's easy to see that these guys have some talent, and with a bigger budget, more useful resources and a good cast, they can probably pull off some great movies in the future.

While watching Undead, you can see where the influences came from, there's a touch of Evil Dead here, and some Bad Taste there, which all blend to give us a good time. Unlike Bad Taste and Evil Dead, UNDEAD goes further into the comedy/camp style. In UNDEAD, you can forgive it for the plot, the acting, and everything else that doesn't make sense because all the movie wants to do is have fun.

Unfortunately for the plot in UNDEAD, it isn't sure in what direction it wants to go, it will splash guts at you in one second, then show you a bare fat ass in the next. It doesn't know whether it wants to be a zombie film, or an alien film.

I can forgive all the actors in the film, except for the lead male. Marrion, the triple wielding shotgun hero of the film, gives all his lines in strict monotone, which gives Bill Murray in Broken Flowers a run for his money.

The film is Austrailian, so maybe some jokes will hit and others miss, but the characters for the most part make them work, especially the cop. When compared to the films it tries to emulate, in falls flat, but as a low-budget, comedy/zombie film it manages to please.

6.5/10

[Pyro Tramp]

Marrion pissed the hell out of me.

And as for House of Wax, i just love Elisha Cuthbert :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

Chicken Little (Mark Dindal)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/chicken_little/zach_braff/chicken.jpg


"Chicken Little is juvenile, with only a few jokes for adults"

After Chicken Little causes widespread panic, when he mistakes a falling acorn for a piece of the sky, the young chicken is determined to restore his reputation and earn respect from his father. But just as things are starting to go his way, a real piece of the sky lands on his head. Chicken Little and his band of misfit friends, Abby Mallard aka Ugly Duckling, Runt of the Litter and Fish Out of Water, attempt to save the world without sending the town into a whole new panic.

With Chicken Little, Disney has it's first chance to prove itself as a company that still has the magic, that it did when the whole 2-d animation was big. With juggernauts such as Dreamworks and Pixar, Disney finds itself in a whole new ball game with CGI films..without the aid of Pixar.

Running under 80 minutes, Little zips across the screen quickly and with the zany movement throughout the entire film, you'd wonder if Mark Dindal knew what he wanted this film to be. It's hard to keep track what is going on in the first 10 minutes because there is so much chaos happening on the screen. If you are not paying attention, you'll miss some jokes that poke fun at pop culture movies.

Chicken Little, like Monsters INC, creates it's own world, full of animals and how they would live...even the kind of cars they would drive. While all this is wonderful to see with the crisp animation of the film, it doesn't stand out all that much to make the viewer happy...unless they're under the age of 12.

Little is a hit for kids, with the lead character being a cute little warm and cuddly thing they will want to have as a toy. All the other characters are extravagant, Runt of the Litter is always paranoid and singing, so kids will love him. Little is a little too juvenile, and tries to balance itself out with pop culture references to War of the Worlds, Raiders of the Lost Arc, Wizard of Oz and even Aliens.

The story isn't all too pleasing because the alien part seems a little forced and out of place in this film. It tries to send out a message about family values, with the father and son figure, buts kids will be too busy laughing at it's kiddie jokes that they will probably miss it.

The voicing is first rate, with Zach Braff leading the team as chicken little himself. Many adults will hear the voices and have fun trying to figure out who they belong too, such as Joan Cusack, Patrick Stewart, Fred Willard, Adam West, Catherin O'Hara, and finally Garry Marshall. Every one does a great job and highlight the film.

The jokes in Little are mostly hit or miss, and when it hits, it hits little. I did chuckle a few times, but at no point did I laugh out loud. The kids will no doubt enjoy it, with it's animal characters being the crowd favourite. Without Pixar, Disney may fall flat, but for now Chicken Little is a decent start to a string of films that will try to showcase that Disney might not need Pixar all that much.

7/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Man With The Screaming Brain (Bruce Campbell)


http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.15.05/gifs/brain-0524.jpg

"Bruce relies on his physical comedy now more then ever."

Man with the Screaming Brain is a story of greed, betrayal and revenge in the a small Bulgarian town. William Cole, wealthy industrialist, winds up with part of his brain replaced by that of a Russian cab driver Yegor. The two couldn't be more different, but they share one thing - both were killed by the same woman. Brought back to life by a mad scientist, William and Yegor form an unlikely partnership to track down their common nemesis.

Bruce Campbell returns to the B horror movie genre that gave him his cult status, this time not only in front of the screen, but behind the lens. Unfortunatly for this time around, the laughs don't deliever and Campbell has to resort to what he does best to try and fill the gap in this film.

As a fan of Campbell, who has the movies, the books and the action figures, I was hoping for another hit to add to my collection. Although, after seeing this film before the purchase, I am glad that I don't have the "pleasure" of adding it.

The film first goes wrong in the story, which at first sight, seems like harmless fun but turns out to be boring drawn out dribble. Which is a sad thing to say because it was written by Mr. Campbell himself. The comedy never really hits, it only makes us scratch our heads. It seems that Campbell ran out of things that are funny and resulted in giving the audience what we've already seen...him fighting himself.

Ted Raimi, the brother of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, is undoubtably the highlight of the film. He brings a freshness to it and an entertaining time when the film really needs it. It helps if you are a fan and have been following these stooges from Evil Dead to Xena, which is why I felt compelled to like this film.

Campbell's experience as a director, from directing episodes of the TV series Hercules is apparent. Campbell makes the film work well enough, even with the low-budget. In the end, there aren't as many things going for this as one would hope for, but the fans of Campbell will stick behind it no matter what, unfortunatly for this fan...I won't.

4/10

[nebbit]

Ummm might give this a miss. :yup: thanks for the review :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Rollerball (John McTiernan)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/rollerball/_group_photos/chris_klein1.jpg


"One of the worst movies ever made"

Johnathan Cross, a lover of extreme sports, is recruited to star in Rollerball. The players are on Rollerblades, trying to bring a heavy metal ball into a high goal. Also, there are motorcyclists around to bring momentum to the players. Oh yes, and there are no rules in the game. During his skyrocketing career, Johnathan has to experience what Alexi has found out: Blood brings more viewing pleasure to the audience. In a final game, Johnathan and his team have to fight for mere survival.

Back in 1975, James Caan brought us a brutal movie in which you can literally hear every bone in the players body break. Now, John McTieran has brought that film to us again, for a new generation. With stars like LL Cool J, Rebbeca Romijn and Chris Klein you would expect it to be a pretty bad remake, but this is not the case. Rollerball does the unthinkable and gives Psycho a running for it's money as the worst remake ever created by man.

Chris Klein in every film he has been in manages to make it look as if he has no range at all. His soft voice and good looks can only go so far, and in a movie where you need to beat the living hell out of another team member, you want someone that can at least yell and make a sound beyond a bird chirp. LL Cool J is only hear to bring the film a "cool" hip look, he's suppose to be the I don't give a damn, James Dean character, but it doesn't fly. Rebbeca Romijn, well, she has a nude scene, but when it's covered in the dark, you wonder why she is even in the movie to begin with.

Rollerball is suppose to be a bloody entertaining film, but McTeirnan at no point manages to show us anything entertaining. The entire game sequences seem uninspired and drawn out. When it goes for a shock, it misses and misses completely. I'm still wondering if LL Cool J's character is dead or alive, but apparently it's not important to the story. LL Cool J probably knew that this was going to be garbage and left the movie, leaving the film crew to make his character disappear. I don't blame him.

Not even the professional himself, Jean Reno can save this film from the ultimate horrible experience that we all will endure from seeing this film. In a film about violence in sports, you would expect to see some, but when you have a PG-13 rating, you know that it was targeted to make money and nothing else.

I can't understand why someone would want to see this film, the final action sequence is yet another let-down in this horrible tripe. The only thing that this film has going for it, is it's 97 minute length, so if you do have the unfortunate experience of sitting through it, it will be over soon enough.

0/10

[Pyro Tramp]

Cheers for the Screaming Brain review. Bit sad you rate it so low, though i'm still going to see it!

[TheUsualSuspect]

BAD TASTE (Peter Jackson)

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/badtaste/badtaste7.jpg

"Aliens, Action, Gore...need I say more?"

A team from the intergalactic fast food chain Crumb's Crunchy Delights descends on Earth, planning to make human flesh the newest taste sensation. After they wipe out the New Zealand town Kaihoro, the country's Astro-Investigation and Defense Service is called in to deal with the problem. Things are complicated due to Giles, an aid worker who comes to Kaihoro the same day to collect change from the residents. He is captured by the aliens, and AIDS stages a rescue mission that quickly becomes an all-out assault on the aliens' headquarters.

When Peter Jackson hit it big with Lord of the Rings, everyone wanted to know what his previous film list was, what they got was a string of obscure films like Meet The Feebles, Dead Alive and Bad Taste. Prior to his LOTR fame, his most successful film was about a kid that went to the past and two ghosts.

Bad Taste is a horror, comedy, action, alien invasion, splatter film. That manages to give exactly what you would expect, a "gorific" fun time. The realism of the film comes from the fact that the film had such a low budget, and it's a skillful act to make a great film out of nothing, Jackson and Raimi did this the best.

This is just a film to have fun and enjoy, don't think to much about it, all you need to understand is there are aliens, and there are the guys who must kill them. Where there is a lack of plot and story, Bad Taste makes up in gore and fun. I wouldn't say that the gore is as bloody as Dead-Alive, but here it is a little bit more realistic, unlike the cheesy tounge in cheek style of the equally great Dead- Alive.

Jackson instead of his usual cameo appearance in his films not only plays one of the leads in the film, but an alien. While I don't see many oscars coming his way for acting, it was funny to see him play a character who's a little nuts. Due to a piece of his brain falling out. As well as an alien, with absolutely no dialogue.

While it's not a flat out comedy, there are numerous funny moments, the funniest one that stick out in my mind would be the sheep...it is just so random. If you have enjoyed Jackson's previous works like Meet the Feebles and Dead-Alive, then Bad Taste is a great way experience.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Darkness Falls (Jonathan Liebesman)

http://www.reelfilm.com/images/darkness.jpg

"Typical Rushed Horror"


When he was a young boy, Kyle claimed that while he was sleeping, he accidentally woke up and saw the Tooth Fairy, who tried to kill him. Since then, he was considered crazy by everyone in town, except for his childhood girlfriend, Caitlin and her younger brother. But now, Hell is coming back as that black haired, winged creature of doom that Kyle described is coming back to town. And she's not leaving without Caitlin's brother...

This film had a really good opening, but the movie fails to keep the momentum of that opening throughout the rest of the film, or my interest for that matter. This movie goes very wrong, very fast, after the opening and it starts with the main character, this person could not act to save his life and it didn't help the film to get other actors who are as entertaining as a piece of wood floating down a river. I've seen better stuff done in direct to video titles.

The tooth fairy is one of the worst horror movie monsters to come to screen and I wish that the mystery behind this creature could have been more mysterious. Just like The Creepers in Jeepers Creepers, the filmmakers decide to tell us everything about it's past and reveal everything about it to us, which makes it not scary. MYSTERY is SCARY, when will filmmakers learn that for a horror movie? The film is unbelievably short, and for this film material, that's a good thing, the credits run 11 minutes so that it could get a theatrical release. I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

This is a movie that will make you yawn and laugh at how bad it is, it is one of those RUSHED Hollywood TYPE MOVIES that come by quickly and leave quicker, this film should never of came at all.

2/10

[nebbit]

Great reviews, thanks :yup:

[Twain]

The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy (Garth Jennings)
7/10

It's my good fortune (or misfortune) to remember the original BBC series. I loved the original series. But I was much younger and the zany mind of Douglas Adams was all new to me. So, was the original version that much better (crude effects and all) or was it a matter of exuberant youth (mine)?

Probably, I'll have to remember Hitchhiker as a wonderful experience that can't be repeated (for me.) And the 16 and 18 and 22 year olds of today will have to find their own Hitchhiker.

[Darth Stujitzu]

Hey Suspect, are you taking a leaf out of my book, 0/10, 2/10, I thought it was only me that was that harsh!
Haven't seen many of your recent reviews, must be getting picky in my old age!

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Devil's Rejects (Rob Zombie)


http://www.kcactive.com/aande/reel/images/Devils%20Rejects.jpg



"As Brutal As Hollywood Will Ever Get"


Rob Zombie gives us a sequel to 'House of 1000 Corpses' set some months later with the Texas State Police making a full-scale attack against the murderous Firefly family residence for the 1,000+ murders and disappearances of the past several years. But three of the family members escape, including Otis, Baby Firefly and Baby's father Captain Spaulding. The evil trio go on a road trip, leaving dozens of mangled bodies in their wake.

House of 1,000 Corpses was said to bring back the old golden age of horror. After many visits to the MPAA they movie was pushed back a few years. Then when it finally came out, the hype surrounding it ended up being disappointment. Zombie now with more experience behind the camera and with the pen, gives us a sequel to Corpses which is as brutal as Hollywood will ever get.

Where Zombie went wrong with Corpses, he does right in Rejects. No more do we have Dr. Satan, instead we are centred on the core characters of, the insane Otis, the beautiful Baby and the funny man Captain Spaulding. Zombie manages to up the suspense, the story, directing, acting, and of course the gore.

Now I'm not saying that this is a masterpiece of cinema, it's far from it. Although, what Rejects does do is make you feel sick and disgusted with what is on the screen. Exactly what Zombie set out to do. Is it the most brutal movie ever? Of course not, but for Hollywood standards it reaches the extreme level. The film itself seems more gritty and violent because of the grainy film that Zombie uses.

Zombie uses many different techniques in this film, including freeze framing and in a star wars like cutting, slicing to the next scene. With talent in music videos and his debut film, Zombie is able to better himself here. He knows what to shoot now and what not to shoot. With Rejects, Zombie doesn't have the pressure of trying to impress or re-create the genre that he once said he would, instead he is able to focus on what's important.

Rejects has a super-star cast of another kind. No big Hollywood names here, but prominent people in the business nonetheless. From the likes of Diamond Dallas Page and Michael Berryman to the cute E.G.Daily, who does the voice of Tommy of the kids show Rugrats.

The use of music fits perfectly in this film. Freebird is the perfect way to end the film, which changes in sync with the film. Th Allman Brothers Midnight Rider flows wonderful with the freeze framing on the opening credits.

Upon a first impression, I thought that the psychos went on a murder spree throughout the country, now though this is true, the spree isn't as big as one would imagine. After a brutal hotel encounter, the family hide out at Spauldings brother place, where the cops came at them. After that, it's just torture from the lead cop and a great ending. So murder spree gone, this film still has enough shock moments to keep you interested.

Zombie makes a ferocious picture with the aid of a great cast and beautiful music. The film is sadistic and and throat gripping. If you're not a fan of grind house or torture in films, then you might want to skip this carnage. If you're a horror movie fan and love to see the massive slaughter of people, then without a doubt, check out this disturbing little film.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Well, if you saw those movies, then you'd be rating in the negatives :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Jarhead (Sam Mendes)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/jarhead/jamie_foxx/jarhead2.jpg


"Welcome To The Suck...OORAH"


Jarhead (the self-imposed moniker of the Marines) follows Swoff, a third-generation enlistee, from a sobering stint in boot camp to active duty, sporting a sniper's rifle and a hundred-pound ruck on his back through Middle East deserts with no cover from intolerable heat or from Iraqi soldiers, always potentially just over the next horizon. Swoff and his fellow Marines sustain themselves with sardonic humanity and wicked comedy on blazing desert fields in a country they don't understand against an enemy they can't see for a cause they don't fully fathom.

Jarhead is a war movie that actually doesn't have that much war shown in the film. Without any political statements to make, Jarhead simply tells the story of a solider in the war, who desperately wants to kill someone, something, anything. In order to let the madness go away from the unsettling nervousness one would have in a situation like this. So don't see this movie to see some politics because Sarsgaard said it best. "F*ck politics...it's all bullsh*t, it doesn't matter. We're here now." The opening of the film is brings us back to the day when we first saw a film titled "Full Metal Jacket" and while the rest of the film also makes a comparison to it, it is able to distinguish itself as refreshing.

What makes Jarhead so interesting to watch is not the fact that they have to battle an enemy, but rather themselves when they have no one to kill. When your sent to war with all the training and skills to kill an individual and are not able to, it will make you go crazy. So when the opportunity finally comes up for Swoff he jumps at the chance, although when that opportunity is taken away from him at the last second, the sniper scouter, Troy, literally breaks down. This is the stress that the soldiers must constantly go through every day out there. For the soldiers there are only a few outlets for this stress.

Gyllenhaal has the usual soldier goes crazy scene, but here it is compelling and not clichéd. You do not know what the outcome will be, which surprisingly is unique. Then again it could be the fact that Gyllenhaal plays crazy so well...Donnie Darko anyone? From here till the Oscars, I'll wear my Sarsgaard for Supporting Actor Pin. For a character who says welcome to the suck every ten minutes, Sarsgaard is able to give a charismatic and electric performance. Foxx plays the prick drill Sargent, he rough and crude and plays it to a tee. While Foxx has the flashier supporting part, it's Sarsgaard who is more gripping and will ultimately get the recognition.

Mendes has a few "artistic" shots, that are pleasing to the eye. Like the shadows of two soldiers sitting in front of a red/orange sunset, or a soldier standing, while the oil burns behind him.

Powerful and humorous is what Jarhead is, and it can join fight club on the list of guy movies. When every soldier watches the most famous scene from Apocalypse Now, you get pumped up yourself and when they prepare to watch another movie. You get attached to these soldiers and when the one soldier watches "Deer Hunter", you can't help but feel the sorrow that he feels. Or even when Gyllenhaal gets the unexpected 'welcome home' from his girlfriend.

With the final 10 minutes of the film, it tries to throw an emotional punch at you, but misses. It would have hit, if it were not in a montage, but centred more on the topic at hand. If it does punch you, it's a light one because it comes and goes so fast. With no explanation at all. Jarhead is a movie with powerful performances and a great eye behind the camera. It's raw realism owes itself to the book that it was based on. Jarhead goes into the category as one of the few movies that makes me want to read the material that it was made from.


8.5/10

[Strummer521]

Jarhead (the self-imposed moniker of the Marines) follows Swoff, a third-generation enlistee, from a sobering stint in boot camp to active duty, sporting a sniper's rifle and a hundred-pound ruck on his back through Middle East deserts with no cover from intolerable heat or from Iraqi soldiers, always potentially just over the next horizon. Swoff and his fellow Marines sustain themselves with sardonic humanity and wicked comedy on blazing desert fields in a country they don't understand against an enemy they can't see for a cause they don't fully fathom.

Don't you think you ought to give yahoo.com credit for this paragraph?


synopsis from Yahoo (http://movies.yahoo.com/shop;_ylt=AqTRw5QUIGzarkuyGvhqfoVfVXcA?d=hv&cf=info&id=1808640992)

[nebbit]

Great review Sussy. :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

SAW 2 (Darren Lynn Bousman)

http://seaofsin.info/moviefiles/SAW_Dia2.jpg


"Saw 2 Is Not As Sharp Or Shocking As Original"

While investigating the bloody aftermath of a grizzly murder, Detective Eric Matthews has the feeling that it is the work of Jigsaw, the notorious killer who disappeared leaving a trail of bodies behind. Jigsaw is indeed back, but instead of two people locked in a room with only one unthinkable way out, there are eight. Eight strangers, unaware of their connection to each other, forced to play out a game that challenges their wits and puts their lives in jeopardy.

James Wan and Leigh Whannell gave us a sharp and unique film last year, which shocked audiences around the world. It also had over-acting, major plot holes and mediocre pacing. Saw II manages to stay away from everything that was flawed with Saw, although, in doing so, it plays it too safe and loses all the shock that it wanted to give us.

Much like the original, you will find some people in impossible situations, which are unique and great to watch. But Saw 2 tries to take it up a notch by putting more people in this situation, the more people you have the more clichés you need to put in. You get the macho guy, the mysterious guy, the pretty girl, the scared girl, the little kid, the one who knows whats going on, and the token black guy.

Unlike the original, where you actually liked the characters, as annoying or over the top they may have been, here you hate them all. You know that most of them, if not all are going to die in some elaborate death, and this keeps us wanting to see more, just so we can watch them die in Jigsaw's house of horrors. Saw 2 focuses more on booby traps then clues for it's players. Even if there were more clues, the people don't care about them, or the director didn't care enough to enlighten us with them.

With these clues, you would expect the people inside to pull together and try to solve this puzzle, instead they all turn on each other. One guy finds out what the first clue was and goes on a killing rampage. It's pretty much the same formula as the first, which makes this saw rusty and dull. The original had many jaws drop to the floor with it's twist ending, and going into Saw 2, you would expect the same. There is a twist, more then one to be precise, which is probably the best thing in this film. Although it never reaches the high-point of the original.

How can a film that has better acting, no as many plot holes and more on Jigsaw not be as good you might as yourself. It's basically the overall feel of the movie. I got chills throughout the entire first film, here I got one. Without ruining it, I'll just say that when the lights went on, my eyes were wide open with disbelief.

Donnie Whalberg is much better in this film, then Danny Glover was in the first. In this installment, he actually has a reason to be here. Aside from the creepy Tobin Bell, Whalberg actually gives a good performance.Everyone else in the house just plays their characters they way they were written. Scream on cue, cry here, and die there.

Excluding the house and all it's traps, the film only showcases one other Jigsaw predicament. A man with a bear trap on his face, who must cut out his own eye in order to get the key to unlock the contraption. Very cool, but not like the reverse bear trap on the girl's jaw from the original. Why did I like the first so much, well it was cool seeing all those little trap he put people in. That was missing from this one. The traps inside the house had no to get out of, the people were doomed and you knew it.

Nevertheless, Saw 2 does end with a twist that sets up a possible third installment. Hopefully in the next one, the saw is sharper and the traps are more convincing. If I were ever in a situation with Jigsaw, I would listen to him carefully and follow his every step, I even yelled at the detective to do so. Saw 2 doesn't put to rest the ongoing debate of whether or not Dr. Gordon is alive or dead and it shouldn't, it should be up to interpretation.

Saw 2 was quickly written and directed because it wanted to ride the success of the first and it shows. If time was taken and people who first brought it to us were still involved, Saw 2 could have surpassed the original. The script was written before Saw came out and had nothing to do with it. Once Saw became a hit, a few changes were made and it became Saw 2. So when a script is not written directly for the sequel purpose, you know you're in for trouble.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

I did Strummer and IMDB as well.

[Strummer521]

I did Strummer and IMDB as well.

Huh. I don't see it in your post.

Edit: Nevermind, I see it in the very first post. However in each individual review, you don't make it clear what is in your own words and what is cut and pasted from other websites. That seems like plagiarism to me.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't credit them in my review posts, it's on the first page, where I update my review lists.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Alright, to make it clear, I shall put the plot in italics for what I copy and paste for the plot summary. I will put the note in the first post as well.

[Strummer521]

Ok cool. That clears things up. :)

[nebbit]

Thanks for the Saw 2 review, I haven't even seen the first one yet. http://bestsmileys.com/violent/20.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

Np

[TheUsualSuspect]

CRASH (Paul Haggis)

http://www.canmag.com/images/front/moviereview/crash1.jpg


"A Great Ensemble Cast Delievers"


Several stories interweave during two days in Los Angeles involving a collection of inter-related characters. A black police detective with a drugged out mother and a thieving younger brother, two car thieves who are constantly theorizing on society and race, the distracted district attorney and his irritated and pampered wife, a racist veteran cop (caring for a sick father at home) who disgusts his more idealistic younger partner, a successful black Hollywood director and his wife who must deal with racist cop, a Persian-immigrant father who buys a gun to protect his shop, a Hispanic locksmith and his young daughter who is afraid of bullets, and more.

Paul Haggis won an Oscar for his work on the Best Picture winner "Million Dollar Baby". While "Baby" itself doesn't deserve the praise that it is given, the writing did. Here Haggis gives us another piece of work that will have some in tears and others filled with rage at the morals of society.

Crash's core theme is that of racism and how it is destroying today's society. Crash tries to get the point across that this prejudice is destroying our ways of communication with each other. The film uses L.A. as it's setting to show us that virtually anyone and everyone can be racist. Which is where Crash faults. Although the film does deal with this theme, about 95% of the characters are racist and uses almost every stereotype to showcase the problems in society.

With those two missteps aside, Crash is a film that delivers everything that is promises to. Brilliant writing, good directing and a cast ensemble that gives us great performances. Paul Haggis wrote characters that had problems and he knew exactly how to present them to us and how to deal with them. Many directors who write the material have a hard time trying to abstract the material to screen. David S. Goyer failed at this with Blade Trinity, but here Haggis has enough experience to know what he wants from his actors and in what direction he wants to take them.

Out of all the performances in this picture the select few that would stand out would be the racist cop, played by Matt Dillion. The successful black director, played by Terrance Howard and the racist wife of the district attorney played by Sandra Bullock. Dillion shows that his character is an egotistical selfish prick, but in the end, we end of not hating him, but feeling sorrow for him. He has the trouble of taking care of a sick father and finally puts the life of an individual before the colour of their skin. Terrance Howard gives a performance that is just as good as his portrayal of a pimp in Hustle and Flow. Howard is able to convey so much emotion through his eyes. Finally Bullock plays a character that is radically different from anything that she has done before and is able to convince us of her fear and hate towards those that are of a different race.

Crash delivers lots of moments of tension and fear for the lives of the characters. I was glued to the screen when the little girl put her "invisbile cape" to the test. All the characters effect the lives of each other whether they know it or not and it all fits together perfectly well. Crash is one of the few movies this year to give us a powerful message.

With a talent writer behind the pen and knowing what he wants in this film, he is able to give us a great film. Along with one of the best cast ensembles to grace the screen since the likes of True Romance. Crash gives us a movie that will make us cry, laugh and feel anger towards. Not many movies these days are able to do this, but Crash makes it work beautifully.

8/10

[nebbit]

Crash gives us a movie that will make us cry, laugh and feel anger towards. Not many movies these days are able to do this, but Crash makes it work beautifully.

8/10

Great review, this does sum it up perfectly http://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/3.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

Naked Lunch (David Cronenberg)

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/155/1448/320/eyelunch.jpg


"Exterminate all rational thought. That is the conclusion I have come to."

Exterminator Bill Lee finds himself following his wife into an addiction to the bug powder he uses. After accidentally killing her, he descends into a hallucinatory existence in which he imagines himself a secret agent answering to a series of bizarre creatures. He channels his energies into writing "reports" on his delusional mission, while trying to break his addiction. The story loosely reflects events in the life of author Burroughs as he wrote the novel.

Author Burroughs wrote this novel while he was on drugs and most of the things that take place did happen in real life, most noteably Burroughs accidently killing his wife. So when you add Canadian David Cronenberg into the mix, it makes Naked Lunch one of those movies that will leave you scratching your head. Not to say that Naked Lunch is weirder then Videodrome, but it certainly is up there.

When you watch a film where the lead character talks to his typewriter after he imagines it transform into a bug who speaks out of it's anus....you wonder to yourself can this be any good? Naked Lunch is definitly a film that you either love or hate, but ironically I'm neither. For those who are fans of Cronenberg, Burroughs, or Weird Films, then definitly check this out.

Peter Weller is the perfect choice for this character, who is clearly insane. He has gone past the melt-down stage of his life and enter a zone of unimaginable thought. Iam Holm plays the nasty old writer who is married to Joan, who is also Lee's wife. Judy Daivs is the leading lady the plays the two characters, who in Burroughs mind tripping novel are the same.

Naked Lunch is exactly what you would expect from the weird mind of Cronenberg who brought us such films like Videodrome and The Fly. Nothing new here, we see aliens, talking anus bugs, huge centipede people and so on. Cronenberg adapts the novel to the screen and uses the dialogue beautifully. He knows what colours to use in this style of film and the work.

The film does suffer from it's length, it stretches to about 2 hours. With that time length it drags in some places and many might be turned off from it's confusing plot line. Which I still do not fully comprehend. But that is the ultimate goal from a film such as this, along with any film from Kubrick. If you fully understand it, then the artist has failed at what they have tried to do. The ending to Naked Lunch may confuse some people, but think hard enough and those who discover the reason behind it will link it to the rest of the film and might enjoy it a little more.

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

House of the Dead (Uwe Boll)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/boll_kg/the_house_of_the_dead/_group_photos/david_palffy4.jpg


"The Tagline Reads The dead walk...You run. How Very True."

This film is a prequel to all of the The House of the Dead video games. Set on an island off the coast of Florida, a techno rave party attracts a diverse group of college coeds and a Coast Guard officer. Soon, they discover that their X-laced escapades are to be interrupted by zombies and monsters that attack them on the ground, from the air, and in the sea, ruled by an evil entity in the House of the Dead...

House of the Dead is a popular video game in the arcade, not so much on the home console. Many video game titles aren't very good, Mario Bros, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider failed to please the fans of those games. House of the Dead manages to do something that those films were not able to do. Displease every single person who has ever heard of it.

Uwe Boll is known as the video game filmmaker, after tackling this project and the equally "brilliant" Alone in the Dark, Boll's future projects include Bloodrayne, FarCry and Postal. All of which are video games. Who will get the unfortunate pleasure of being presented to us through the vision of Uwe Boll. It amazes me that this man still finds work today. Why people think he can bring video games to the screen is beyond me because he doesn't bring them to life, he kills them before they even get a chance.

Now onto the film that is known as House of the Dead, well where do I start? There are no redeeming factors of this film. Not the cameo appearance of Clint Howard can save this, not even nudity from random young beautiful women. Uwe Boll somehow manages to take nudity/violence/horror/action/special effects and actually hurt a movie. These things are suppose to make them entertaining.

The film for god know's why has random images from the actual video game in the film. Every time before a death I believe we see someone playing the game. I do not understand the reason behind this. Is Boll intentionally trying to tick off North America....maybe even the word? None of the characters are likeable. The Chinese woman who wears american themed spandex jumps into the "undead" infested water to save the life of a man she met literally 5 seconds ago. She screams his name as if they were best friends.

You can't forget the fact that every single one of these party people are able to pick up and fire a weapon, with 100% accuracy by the way. Can't forget the cool looking stances while shooting them. Well, if you call jumping up in the air with a shotgun a cool looking thing to do. Boll probably thought to himself, how can I make my film cooler...well, let's throw in that thing the matrix did, and now every other action movie is doing. Bullet Time. Horrendous.

The film ultimatly makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to the viewer, or even those people involved. Everything bad that you've heard about this film is true, but even worse. It goes down in history as one of those movie that you want to smash to bits with whatever weapon you can find but then think to yourself that it doesn't even deserve that. You end up hating yourself for even watching it, or even thinking about watching it.

House of the Dead is a horror movie that has no horror and too much action, It turns from horror to horror-ble. The make-up effects, well...look as if a 12 year old kid painted. Something that they would wear out or Halloween. It's a film like this that make you wonder why it got a theatrical release, or why it would even be considered for a direct to video release. It makes you wonder if you can come up with something better yourself, then you go to the bathroom and actually come up with something better...unfortunatly you have to flush that down.

0/10

[nebbit]

0/10

:laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Alone In The Dark (Uwe Boll)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/alone_in_the_dark/christian_slater/alone1.jpg


"Boll manages to destroy yet another video game franchise"

Edward Carnby, detective of the paranormal, unexplained and supernatural, investigates a mystery (the recent death of a friend) with clues leading to "Shadow Island" that brings him face to face with bizarre horrors that prove both psychologically disturbing and lethal, as he discovers that evil demons worshiped by an ancient culture called the Abskani are planning on coming back to life in the 21st century to once again take over the world... and only he and a young genius anthropologist with an incredible memory (and his ex-girlfriend), Aline Cedrac, stand in their way, at a gateway to hell. Standing in Carnby's way, however, is the impact that a brief encounter with an evil spirit called the Queen had upon his mind, as he slowly finds himself overpowered by the forces of darkness as they eat away at his very sanity...

Uwe Boll became known to the world with the video game horror based film House of the Dead. After the horrible reviews and box office, someone somewhere decided to let Uwe Boll destroy another video game franchise, this time it's another horror video game, Alone in the Dark. Which frankly is how you should watch the movie, if you have to that is.

Alone in the Dark goes wrong in so many directions, the first would have to be the screenplay, which has too many plot holes and confusing storyline that no one can tell what is going on. Throw into the mix a director that has no clue what he is doing except throwing an explosion here and a shootout there. Boll did one thing right, make the movie about soldiers shooting creatures, instead of your everyday party goers, such as seen in House.

Alone in the Dark suffers from alot of different things, but even if you didn't know who Uwe Boll is or how bad the script actually is, you must be able to notices the horrible casting job. Who in their right mind would think of Tara Reid for a genius anthropologist? Her lines range from horribly delivered, to "hey look over here" or "hey check this out". Slater plays an Indiana Jones type character, who lacks the charm, wit, courage, intelligence...basically everything that makes Indiana Jones.

Stephen Dorff isn't that bad of an actor, he just has the unfortunate curse of choosing bad movie roles. Either he needs a new agent, or needs to get better material thrown his way. Frankly military leader hunting the beast who has conflict with the lead character doesn't do him justice.

Alot of the scenes are laughable when Boll tries to make them hip for the new generation. Such as the characters being in total darkness, then shooting the bullets that have lights on them which light up the characters and the screen. Boll should take some directing lessons and not try to make something look appealing.

It's obvious that Boll doesn't care about the story, or just doesn't understand it, the characters, the music, basically everything that makes a movie with the exception of special effects. Boll tries to make the film cool with it's "slo-mo" and of course the shot where the monster jumps at the screen.

Apparently someone out there thinks Boll is doing something right because he has numerous video game titles on the way, next up is Bloodrayne. I can only hope that when FarCry hits the theatres he will learn from his mistakes and make at least a decent film for once in his life.

1/10

[Darth Stujitzu]

1/10, definite signs of improvement for Boll then. :laugh:
It's one scary ass video game, but when I saw Boll and Slater attached I feared the worst.
Oh well, can't remember the last video game adaptation I enjoyed, don't hold out any hope for Doom.

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy for the review, I think I will give it a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Sky High (Mike Mitchell)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/sky_high/_group_photos/kurt_russell3.jpg

"Live Action Incredibles, But Shy Of It's Greatness"

It all begins at a secret school in the clouds like none on earth: Sky High, the first and only high school for kids with super-human powers going through crime-fighting puberty. This year's class features some of the best, brightest and most powerfully gifted super-teens ever assembled. And then there's Will Stronghold. When you're the son of the world's most legendary super heroes, The Commander and Jetstream, people expect you to live up to the family name The problem is that Will is starting with no superpowers of his own and, worst of all, instead of joining the ranks of the Hero class, he finds himself relegated to being a Sidekick. But when an evil villain threatens his family, friends and the very sanctity of Sky High, Will must use his newfound superpowers to save the day and prove himself a Hero worthy of the family tradition.

When I heard the director of "Surviving Christmas" was making another movie attempt, I felt a little sick. Mike Mitchell was on a fast track to being the next...UWE BOLL. But here Mitchell is able to poke fun at a genre and be able to use quirky special effects out of the writers imagination, guess what, it works.

Sky High is basically the live action version of The Incredibles, but is shy of the Incredibles greatness. Sky High is able to make fun of itself and the genre it imitates. It's hard not to smirk at certain parts where the students must fill in such lines as "Holy,____,____ Man" or when Lynda Carter says "I'm not wonder-woman you know". Granted a lot of kids who watch this movie will probably not get these little jokes, but it is in their for the older crowd and it's appreciated.

Kurt Russel seems to be imitating Adam West as Batman whenever he is Cap't Commander. Which is great to see, and his secret identity is hidden with a pair of glasses, like Clark Kent. Bruce Campbell is a familiar face who seems to enjoy his role as the overbearing coach boomer. A lot of times when kids are in movies, they tend to be a tad annoying to some, here they all seem to fit nicely in the film and the stand-out is notable Steven Strait (Warren Peace). Who look like the only one who enjoys being the superhero that was written. Kids in the Hall fans will be pleased to see Foley and McDonald create laughs up on the screen once again.

The real treat is seeing all the superpowers that Mitchell and co conjure up at the school and how they are put to use. Seeing a young girl freeze two teenage boys, another boy stretch like Mr. Fantastic down the steps, and even a flash like character running around the school grounds. The characters powers range from super-strength to melting like a Popsicle on the spot.

In the end, it's not a harmless film. The kids will enjoy seeing the superpowers fly across the screen and the bright clours that the costumes are. The adults will enjoy the old school jokes. Sky High is a good film, that does everything right, but just doesn't have enough "superpowers" in it to be "Incredible"

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Seven Samurai (Akira Kurosawa)

http://www.portlandstreet.com/_165658_seven_samurai.jpg

"If You Could Only Watch One Film In Your Lifetime...Look No Further."

A village is constantly attacked by well armed bandits. One day after an attack they seek the wisdom of an elder who tells them they cannot afford weapons, but they can find men with weapons, samurai, who will fight for them, if they find samurai who are in down on their luck and wondering where their next meal will come from. They find a very experienced samurai with a good heart who agrees to recruit their party for them. He selects five genuine samurai and one who is suspect but the seven return to the village to protect it from the forty plus bandits.

If you could only watch one film in your lifetime, this one is it. Yes that's a pretty bold statement, but it's true. Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is a must see for any film fan. Kurosawa brought so many elements together for this film that it is on such a grand an epic scale.

Each samurai has their own arc to them, from being the experienced warrior to a young hopeful. Kurosawa takes his time to develop each character on his/her own terms and it works wonderfully. The film is extremely long and the epic battler doesn't take place till the final part of the film, but here we get to know our Seven Samurai, all of them, very well. We care for each, not wanting them to die in the heat of the battle, for a film to be able to do this for one character is great, but for seven....is extrodinary.

Samurai is a dazzlingly technical achievement for it's time and to this day outshines most "epic" movies we see today. It has beautiful cinematography and art direction. Kurosawa has a keen eye and uses it well in this film.

Samurai has one of if not the most amazing battle put to screen. The samurai turn the village into a fortress and use the surroundings to their help. The battle is so massive it spawns roughly 30 some odd minutes. The climatic battle itself goes through every rock that mother nature throws it's way, from the cold dirty rain to the hot dry day. It has influenced all the films we see today, The Return of The King, The Magnificient Seven, Narnia. Please don't see this film expecting BRAVEHEART, because there will be no limbs flying off the screen. But the action is beautifully filmed and shows early use of slow-motion.

Samurai packs an emotional punch at the end, as it shows how the samurai are honourable, we have been on this journey with them since their beginning to their end and we cannot help but feel sorrow for the ones lost in the battle. We feel sorrow for the Samurai because in the end they get nothing, yes the village is safe and the enemy is gone, but the only thing the samurai get is a loss in numbers.

Samurai is a landmark film that has it's place in history as one of the greatest. For those that can't comprehend it, think of it as Japan's Citizen Kane....only better. For a film that has inspired so many and given us so much, there is only praise to be said. For if it were not for this film, we may not be where we are today in cinema.

10/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review Sussy, I just bought this movie, it is in my top 10. :D

[Darth Stujitzu]

Got the framed poster in my bathroom, cool or what?
Love the film, even liked the american rip-off the Magnificent 7, but the original is still the best!
A 10/10 review, my my Suspect you are feeling generous this festive season!!!!
Just glad Christain Slater's nowhere near it!!! :laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Just glad Christain Slater's nowhere near it.....how very true, LMAO

[TheUsualSuspect]

Bewitched (Nora Ephron)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/bewitched/will_ferrell/bewitched2.jpg


"Will Ferrell Tries His Best To Save This...Dead Duck"

Out in California's San Fernando Valley, Isabel is trying to reinvent herself. A naive, good-natured witch, she is determined to disavow her supernatural powers and lead a normal life. At the same time, across town, Jack Wyatt a tall, charming actor is trying to get his career back on track. He sets his sights on an updated version of the beloved 1960s situation comedy Bewitched, re-conceived as a starring vehicle for himself in the role of the mere-mortal Darrin. Fate steps in when Jack accidentally runs into Isabel. He is immediately attracted to her and her nose, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the nose of Elizabeth Montgomery, who played Samantha in the original TV version of Bewitched. He becomes convinced she could play the witch Samantha in his new series. Isabel is also taken with Jack, seeing him as the quintessential mortal man with whom she can settle down and lead the normal life she so desires. It turns out they're both right--but in ways neither of them ever imagined.

Nicole Kidman is a good actress. Will Ferrell is a funny comedian. Nora Ephron is a decent director who knows how to handle romantic comedies. So how could this remake of a classic TV show with a lot of things going right for it end up being a dead duck, well....nothing that I just mentioned shows up in this film.

Kidman is hard to watch as she delivers her lines like a fragile child with absolutely no credibility. Will Ferrell tries his best to get a laugh out of the material that was written, and uses a lot of improve to get those laughs, but ultimately comes off as acting like a child. Nora Ephron seemed like she didn't know what she wanted from her actors, or from the script, a child could do a better job and I'm pretty sure that this was written by a child. It tries too hard to be cute.

The script is where the film is really falls flat, there seemed like there was none. The whole filmed seemed like it was rushed and there is absolutely no chemistry between Kidman and Ferrell, or even Ferrell and Ephron for that matter. Putting these two together was a disaster. It seemed that Ephron didn't know how to handle Ferrell's quick comedy and just threw all his jokes in, funny or not. Steve Carrell, who is funny with hits like The Office and Virgin, doesn't know how to do good impersonations. Seemed like a last ditch effort to try and hit us with more childish comedy. Every other character in the movie is boring and useless. It's sad to see Micheal Cain in this heap.

It was hard for me to watch this film, seeing Cain use his magic right in broad daylight on the street and no one noticing. When an umbrella appears out of nowhere, you must think that something is up.

The highlight of the film, as low as it may be is indeed Ferrell. The only decent and somewhat funny parts in the film is when he has a hex on him, or a spell. That's where Ferrell can have his fun, much like Carell did in Bruce Almighty. The film ends quickly as well, probably due to poor test screenings. So we all get that 6 months later crap and see how the two end up.

In the end, this is a horrible remake, with a horrible team behind it. Ferrell needs to choose his projects wisely, not only must the material be funny, but there needs to be a good director behind it. You'd think after Kicking and Screaming he would acknowledge that.

4/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, I had a feeling after seeing the shorts that I may not like this movie. :yup: your review has reaffirmed that :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unforunate Events (Brad Silberling)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/lemony_snicket_s_a_series_of_unfortunate_events/_group_photos/emily_browning17.jpg

"The Environments Created Make The Film"

Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire are three intelligent young children who receive terrible news that their parents have died in a fire and have left them an enormous fortune not to be used until the eldest child is of age. When they are sent to live with Count Olaf, a greedy distant relative, they soon learn he is trying to steal their fortune for himself.

Films that are based on a beloved fan base, such as Lord of The Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, have the enormous task of pleasing so many. Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events is no different, as it is loved from many young minds. For Lord of the Rings and Narnia, they were transfered to the screen in a fantasy format, for Unfortunate Events, it goes between the lines of Fantasy and Comedy, but cannot be able to connect either to the audience.

This is a dark film, about a man who killed the parents of three children so he may get the vast fortune, when this fails, he tries to marry the young girl, pretty dark eh. But In the film, it plays it off as comedic, and many of the comedic moments in the film don't hit all the notes.

Jim Carrey, while looking the part perfectly, seems to be playing himself in the role. I saw Count Olaf, but I did not believe him. Although, you can tell that Jim Carrey had fun being all the different personalities, and it is a delight to see him portray the many different characters.

While in most movies child actors seem to annoy more then please. Case in point, The Ring. Here all the kids are likable. They know how to act in this film because they understood the material, after all the source material is for kids. Unlike every other movie where the kids seem to know everything, case in point again, The Ring. Here they are lost in what is going on, even though we all know what the answer is at the end. The film tries to play it of as a surprise that we find out what really happened to the parents, but we all knew it from the beginning.

It was comedic to see all the adults not knowing Count Olaf's plan, or seeing through his disguise, but it was also frustrating at the same time. Another frustration would be the weak CGI of the baby and snake playing together. That scene made me laugh at it and not with it.

So where does Snicket get it's praise from, well that's easy, the amazing set designs and cinematography. All of which are beautiful in their own sense. From the beautiful orange sky, to the house on the edge of cliff. The entire film was a beautiful sight to see. It looks like something that Tim Burton would do, and if Burton had done this film it could have been something incredible.

Snicket is a feast for the eyes and a good flick to see if you're a fan of the source material. If you're looking for a film with lots of laughs, then pass. If you're looking for depth in plot, then pass, because it's pretty much generic. Olafs tries to get money, kids go to one relatives, Olaf tries to kill them, they go to next, Olaf tries to kill them, tries to get money. Jim Carrey isn't his crazy self, he seems restrained, to a degree. He lets his craziness out through the wild characters that he plays in disguise. Enjoy the film for it's unique experience.

6/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the interesting review :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

American Pie Presents: Band Camp (Steve Rash)


http://www.monstersandcritics.com/artman/uploads/aap2.jpg

"American Pie is now National Lampoon...The Later Films"

This time around, the focus will be on Matt Stifler, younger brother of Steve Stifler, as Matt is sent to band camp for the summer when he faces expulsion from school. At first, Matt will attempt to wire the camp with hidden cameras to turn it into the set for his own "Girls Gone Wild"-type video, but when he falls for fellow camp buddy Elyse, his efforts to stifle his Stiffmeister ways will surely meet with hilarious results.

Not in anyway another sequel to the first three, more of a spin-off. American Pie roams into new territory and takes a few notes from National Lampoon. Unfortunately, it's not the Animal House or Vacation Lampoon that we all know and love, it treads along Dorm Daze waters.

In comparison to the other Pie films, Band Camp is even more juvenile. Here you don't get any of the original cast members, save Levy and the Sherminator. Why he decided to do this film is beyond me, but his appearance alone cannot save this film. The lead character, Matt Stifler is even more annoying then his older brother. Scott was funny in the first Pie movies because he wasn't the main focus, here we get Tad Hilgenbrink trying his best to do a Stifler impersonation, and failing completely.

The crude teen comedy that made American Pie such a hit for the first movies, seems to try to hard in this installment. Instead of getting a laugh or a gross out gag, we instead sit there scratching our heads wondering why the hell they even decided to do that. There is also the case of the nudity, which so happens to appear in ever Pie film. If you ask me, that is the only reason people went to see the 3rd and the only reason people will see this one.

American Pie is no longer about the laughs, but about the beautiful women in it showing off their bodies. The lead actress in this film does her best with the material and I would like to see her get some more roles in her career. Seeing the ass of the main actor once is not funny, so why force us to see it on multiple occasions. Three times is an obvious plead for help and a long stretch for laughs.

I hope that this is the last installment in the Pie series, do not fall into the long downhill spiral that has taken over National Lampoon. Doesn't anybody get it over there, if we all want to see some hot naked chicks, we watch porn, not a crappy teen comedy.

2/10

[nebbit]

Thanks Suspect, I think i will give this one a miss. :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Family Stone (Thomas Bezucha)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_family_stone/_group_photos/rachel_mcadams5.jpg


"The Family Stone Delivers, Even With It's Bogus Sub-Plots"


The Stone family get together for the Christmas holidays and one of their son's is bringing home his uptight girlfriend, with the hope of proposing. When the family takes it one step too far with the hostility towards her, she brings in her sister for comfort. This happens to cause more complications then solutions.

The Family Stone tries to pass itself off as a Christmas Holiday comedy, when it is totally different. The laughs are there, but it's not laugh out loud funny, instead the film is filled with more emotion then you will find in any other film this Christmas Season, that's if you have no love for a giant ape.

Bezucha has the support of a great cast. Graig T Nelson and Diane Keaton, as the parents, their pain in the ass daughter, Rachel McAddams, pregnant daughter, Elizabeth Reaser, weed smoking son, Luke Wilson, gay and Deaf son, Tyrone Giordano and of course their business man son, Dermot Mulroney, who's girlfriend is non other then Sarah Jessica Parker and her sister Claire Danes...did you get all that?

The Family Stone is indeed funny, but it's not necessarily the material that makes it funny, it's the amazing cast, that brings life to the jokes and craziness that this family is. Within the whole family, Luke Wilson and Rachel McAddams stand out, as basically the exact opposite to how they feel to Parker. McAddams hates her guts and Wilson has feelings for her. That single element to the film is one of the negatives.

Stone is a good film that has good laughs, but there is an underground feeling of sorrow in it. The film is more about the characters within the family then it is about the mishaps of Parker and the family. Once Parker's sister arrives, and you see the look Mulroney gives, you know exactly what the outcome of the film will be. This sub-plot is just too unbelievable to be taken seriously and takes the film down a notch because it's simply bogus and would never happen.

One scene that I laughed in which was not suppose to happen was the slow-motion part of Mulroney walking back home with a smile on his face. It's goofy and inappropriate for this type of film. I was having fun with the film and emotionally attached to it, until that scene and the final ending. The ending is suppose to be one of the sad parts of the entire film, but when you see it coming it really has no effect because in some cases you just want it to get over with.

Stone will have you laugh and possibly cry, but will also have you cursing out at some of the goofy and unbelievable scenes. With those aside, Stone is able to deliver the goods.

7.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The 40 Year Old Virgin (Judd Apatow)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/the_40_year_old_virgin/_group_photos/seth_rogen9.jpg


"Virgin Is Without A Doubt, The Funniest Comedy In Years."

Andy Stitzer is a toy collector, who plays video games, rides a bicycle to work and has never had sex. When his co-workers need a fifth poker buddy they ask Andy to join in on the fun. After some raunchy sex talk they discover that Andy is in fact a virgin and they make it their mission to get Andy laid. When Andy meets a beautiful woman who is divorced and has kids, he falls in love, and finds it hard to keep his virginity a secret.

Steve Carell is a funny guy, you have probably noticed him in many comedic films as the *******, Bruce Almighty, the creepy guy, Achorman, and loser, Sleepover. In virgin he wrote the material, so he knows how to play the character perfectly. With it's R rating, Carell and co were able to let anything fly in terms of their sexual innuendos.

Judd Apatow has his directorial debut with Virgin, his previous work including off beat comedy Undeclared and Freaks and Geeks. When the director and actor both write the film and both get what is funny about it, it makes it a lot easier to connect to the audience. It is a raunchy movie. The sex jokes are everywhere, the swearing is everywhere. But it all fits in this movie. Carell is so innocent in the movie, so seeing him curse so much is odd in a funny way. Catherine Keener looks and performance good in this film, but it's Carell's friends that are funny.

The film has many comedic highlights, unlike other comedy films that may contain only one or two. Birgin manages to keep the laughs coming and each time they do, they get longer and louder. Carell wax chest scene had me in tears and the fact that everyone knows that it was real made it even funnier. Seeing the reactions from the actors in the room was priceless and Carells "cursing" was hilarious. Another highlight was Carell trying to put on the condoms. He has trouble of course cause he has never had sex. So when the condom snaps and hits him in the penis you can't help but laugh. To add icing to the cake the kids enter and see the "used" condoms on the bed and ask how many times they did it. The ending song credits is one of the funniest moments, if you know where the joke is.

Virgin is indeed the funniest movie of 2005. It is hilarious and has a good message about abstinence. The only downfall of the film would be it's running time, it goes over 2 hours and they could have easily cut some of the material out. During the film I had mixed emotions about the length, at first I did not want it to end, then I was thinking to myself, this is a long movie.

Carell's talent in other films and the office were not really noticed. Now that he has a successful film under his belt, his previous work will be acknowledge and his future projects will be plenty. I'm for one glad to see new faces in comedy rising and hopefully others will be fading, Sandler and Stiller.

In the end, Virgin is the laugh out loud comedy of the year and you should definitely check it out if not for the laughs, then for the message.

8.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews Suspect, I may watch both :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Cry_Wolf (Jeff Wadlow)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/rogue_pictures/cry_wolf/sandra_mccoy/crywolf1.jpg


"The Horror Movie Rules Kill Cry_Wolf"

After a new student makes a fool out of everyone during a friendly game, they university students decide to take the game to the next level. They create a false rumour based on a real murder, but when one of the students receives threatening instant messages, the game is taken to a whole new level. Their rumours are coming true, as they think the killer is one of themselves, they try to survive the doomed they had already planned out for themselves.

There was a horror film back in the eighties, that featured a killer killing off teens in a mansion. The title of the film gave away the entire premise and the ending, so there was really no fun to be had with it at all. It was called April Fool's Day and Cry_Wolf is that exact same film, only almost 20 years later. Cry_Wolf is not to be confused with Wolf Creek. Although both are horror movies, with wolf in the title, which came out roughly the same time and are in the end, not entertaining. In the case for Cry_Wolf, this film suffers from the old horror movie rules.

Wolf could have been a decent horror film for the year of 2005, but it's shortcomings are too many and it's high points are too few. While the overall look of the killer is decent, the orange ski mask and army jacket give the killer a more realistic look then say someone wearing a fencing mask? But we hardly ever see this killer and when we do, the film has to go into this "cool for the sake of it" effect and distorts the image.

Non of the characters are likable. Jared Padalecki plays the same character that he did in House of Wax and no other actor stands out from the other, they are all the same. Although Bon Jovi was not particularly bad in this film, he really had no place in it either.

Wadlow seems to believe that he had something interesting here and tried to tweak it into a something more then a slasher horror film. In some movies this works, but for Wolf, it unfortunately doesn't. Wadlow has some talent, his previous short films are much better this one, he feature debut. Wolf lacks any scares to really scare, and intelligence to make you think, any deaths to make you have a good time. The horror movie rules kill this film, for instance, if you do not see a death on screen, usually they are not dead. Case in point Scream 3, once this is set into motion, you can pretty much figure out the ending.

If the horror movie rules don't give away the ending, then the title will. Much like April Fool's Day, Cry_Wolf treads the same line. You know who's in on the whole thing half way through. The red herrings are too obvious, which lead you to know who's who slasher film. But if that is not enough, the filmmakers try to surprise you with a twist, as every movie has the need to do these days. Thank you Shyamalan. But this twist seems forced as a last ditch effort to make the film seem more then what it actually is. With the ending trying to be smart and different, it ends up being inane and not very original.

If you're looking for a scary movie, look elsewhere. If you are in the mood for a killing frenzy, rent old school slasher flicks instead. If you want to see cry wolf, watch April Fool's Day...at least in that movie the deaths are a lot more imaginative and visible. Wadlow does indeed have some talent, but he had a misstep with this film. One can only hope that he sticks to a more comedic tone like "Manual Labor" and stay far away from crap that is known as Cry_Wolf

4/10

[nebbit]

Thanks Suspect, may give this a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Serenity (Joss Whedon)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/serenity/serenity_reavers.jpg


"Exactly What The Star Wars Prequels Should Have Been."


The crew of Serenity are on the run with a passenger that, unknown to them, is a deadly-weapon and has a deadly secret. An assassin in pursuit of them, believing what he is doing is right. This leads the crew of Serenity on a dangerous adventure, trying to tell the world of the secret and the military that will stop at nothing to hide it.

Joss Whedon is a cult phenomenon behind such hits like, my personal favourite, Buffy The Vampire Slayer and it's spin-off counterpart Angel. Here he takes his imagination to space with the western/sci-fi themed Firefly. After it's abrupt cancellation Whedon fought to get the story complete, hence Serenity.

Serenity is a wild ride from start to finish. It has everything that you could ask for in a film. The special effects are great, the cast works extremely well together and the story is entertaining and actually quite good. Serenity is exactly what the Star Wars prequels should have been, a great entertaining sci/fi adventure.

Nathan Fillion has his first major role with Serenity and hopefully big movie executives will take notice. Fallion is able to not only act strong, but lead a strong cast that work well together. Granted, the same actors worked on the small screen, seeing a cast that actually clicks together and play their characters so well off one another is fun. Chiwetel Ejiofor is decent as the assassin, who showcases no emotion because he is in fact just following orders, until he sees the horrors of what he is protecting.

The special effects, although not as jaw dropping as Star Wars, is able to still give you a wow factor. Seeing the ships chasing Serenity through the clouds and the military not ready for it was amazing and leads into a huge battle, that is on par with any of the Star Wars prequels space battles, if not better. Serenity uses originality in it's battle rather then fly and shoot, which we've seen a little too many times.

The story is not so complex, girl has powers. Learns of a dark secret from the government and escapes. Government sends assassin to catch and kill her. What makes the plot of the story more interesting then what it sounds, the way Whedon constructs it all. Subliminal messages in TV commercials playing on all the planets trigger the girl's mind and turns her into a killing machine. Of course a young girl taking out huge guys left right and centre will attract some attention.

While there are enough inside jokes for fans of the firefly series, Serenity is a movie that anyone can enjoy. You do not need to know any back story to any of the characters or even heard of firefly to enjoy or understand Serenity. Whedon applies witty dialogue to the characters to make you laugh when needed and emotional situations to make you cry. Not in a while has there been a movie that is sharp, funny, sad, and entertaining all in one in a long time. There is enough action for the action buffs, enough comedy for people who like to laugh and enough sci/fi for space nuts. There is not a dull moment in the film, when the action is gone the dialogue keeps us on track with the film.

Any fan of the TV series will be more then satisfied. Any sci/fi fan will be more then pleased. Any movie goer will have a fun time. Serenity was too good for the average movie goer. I sometimes wonder what kind of place we live in when a great film such as Serenity goes unnoticed in the world and some of the crappiest films you can ever imagine go on to make the big bucks. Whedon has closed the Serenity chapter in his life and will go on to make other projects, but for now, Serenity

9/10

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Very interesting, sounds worth seeing! Thanks, TUS.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Lord of War (Andrew Niccol)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/lord_of_war/nicolas_cage/lordofwar2.jpg


"Cage's Performance Makes A Dirt Bag Character Actually Likable"

Yuri looking for a way to find fortune beyond his dreams, decides to turn to arms dealing. Supplying arms to every army except the salvation army. It turns out that he has a natural talent for the gig and brings his brother in for the business. Although when Interpol agent Valentine starts to shake things up, Yuri finds himself slowly losing his mind. Will this dangerous business ruin his relation with wife and son, what will it cost him to stop?

Andrew Niccol hasn't had a really good successful film as of yet, both Gattaca and S1mone had lackluster box office. Here Niccol has the support of Cage, who has a long list of films as of late. As well as a controversial topic, perfect for these times that we live in. Niccol does score with his biggest opening for a film and great reviews, yet the box office seemed to fade away. Well, with no US distributor funding money for this project, who could really guess why?

Lord of War opens with the production a bullet, going through every single stage until it reaches it's target, which is a young African boy. This is the best opening for a film the whole year. It's quite unique and ultra cool. If you went into this film expecting action left right and centre, then this will be a huge let down for you, because Niccol's films are about characters, and Lord of War is one of the best character driven movies in some time.

The main character is Yuri and Nic Cage hands in a great performance by making a dirt bag character actually likable. He gives the character a certain charm, as he does with every role. Leto is Cage's brother, who is a drug addict, going to re-hab to get his life straight. Leto does a decent job and in the last scene showcases the highlight of his talent. Then we have Hawke, who is surprisingly not in the movie that much. War is more about Cage's character and his life as a dealer through the decades, then it is about Hawke tracking him down. Hawke gives a good performance with what little he has.

If you are interested in the topic, then Lord of War is a great film. It will give you insight of what the world of arms dealing is and how it affects everyone. With every character driven movie, there are bound to be some parts that will drag on, and Lord of War is no exception. I found that when Cage is stranded in Africa and starts to really lose his mind, it was kind of dull.

Lord of War is really a film that you either love or hate. This is Niccol's best film as of date, with Gattaca right behind it. Ian Holm, Bridget Moynahan have small roles that play an outcome of Cage's character. But it's the ending of this film that will have the biggest effect on you. Love it or hate it, Lord of War has something to say and in these times it's best to listen to it.

7.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Munich (Steven Spielberg)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/munich/munich_car.jpg


"Spielberg Is Back At Directing Good Films"

The year is 1972 and Palestinian terrorist have eleven Israeli hostages from the Olympcis in Munich. After a shootout and explosions, the deaths of the Israeli Olympians send shock waves through the nation. Avner, an Israeli Mossad officer is given the task of killing those responsible for Munich. Avner and his team begin their mission and it costs them more then they could have expected.

Spielberg's last couple of films have been sub-par at best and seems funny to me that this wave of lackluster films started off as crap and ended off as crap. Both A.I. and War of the Worlds were not of Spielberg's caliber, but now he has made his best film since Saving Private Ryan and is back at directing good films.

Munich is an intense film, it has haunting images, especially the opening segments with the terrorist taking the Israeli hostages. Unlike most films today, Munich is grounded. When people are shot, you see it's grittiness, people don't fly backwards. It's message of violence never solves anything is evident in the film's own violence. From being stabbed in the face with a butcher knife, to being shot in the throat naked. Munich does not go light on the realism of violence.

Bana leads the cast with a great performance, much better then his previous efforts Hulk and Troy, even if he was the best thing in Troy. One scene that connects with the audience is when Bana is talking to his daughter on the phone, when his child says "dada" for the first time, the tears of joy and fear are immediately brought to Bana's face. He is overjoyed with the fact that he hears his daughter and she knows it's her father, but also fears that if he continues on with the mission, he may never be able to see her. Beautifully done scene, Bana expresses his emotions perfectly and Spielberg captures it all on screen.

Spielberg mixed actual footage of the Munich massacre and filmed footage well. The opening was a harsh reality of the violence in this world and Spielberg handled it extremely well. His only fault, would be the ending. In which you see the Twin Towers in the background, it felt like we was trying to get tears out of the audience for the sake of it. Yes we remember they were once there, they're not there now. Even if they were still standing in it's time period, it felt out of place.

The films faults are few, but the are faults that effect the film nonetheless. The Twin Towers, as I mentioned and the sex scene at the end. To me it felt like a Gatorade commercial, with Bana's sweat flying all over the place. You knew that Spielberg was going to inter-cut this scene with the massacre of the hostages and it doesn't fit too well. Running fifteen some odd minutes short of three hours, Munich does drag in some scenes, but others are so intense, that it makes up for it.

The film is controversial and will challenge you to think if what they did was justified. You can make your own judgement on that, but we see the horrors that plague Bana after his mission was "over". Trying to cope with his ordinary life with his family, looking over his soldier for somebody that may have a target on him. Paraniod and Depressed is how he feels after his actions, not being able to sleep, always looking out his window. Whether you can connect with it's characters or not, you have to give sympathy for the hardships that he had to endure, and will endure.

In Munich we get a glimpse of what Bond will look like in the upcoming Casino Royale. As Spielberg gives Craig a silenced handgun, it screams bond and was humorous to see. You may not cry at this film, but you will be changed in some way. It's intensity and message is conveyed clearly and will affect those we see this film. It's nice to see Spielberg is back at what we does best, and not seeing him and Cruise blow crap up.

8.5/10

[Darth Stujitzu]

Cheers Suspect, can't wait to see Munich, it's not out here for a couple of weeks yet, but I'll let you know what I think.


As for the 40 year old virgin...........guess we're agreeing to disagree!!!
I guess we can't agree all the time, at least out membership of the Christian Slater Fan Club is paid up! :laugh:

[nebbit]

Thanks Suspect, like Darth i am looking foward to seeing it. :yup:

[Caitlyn]

Great reviews Suspect… :yup: ... thanks for sharing and I'm sorry I haven't posted in here earlier… I honestly thought I had…

You gave Bewitched a higher rating then I would… ;)

[TheUsualSuspect]

IZO (Takashi Miike)

http://www.sokkmagazin.hu/kritikak/izo/2.jpg


"I Went Into This Film Knowing Nothing About It...And Left Knowing Nothing About It"

Izo is crucified, but instead of being dead, he must go through portals in time killing every single thing in his way. With each kill he becomes more darker and stronger. Until his inner demon takes full control of his body.

Takashi Miike is known for making bizarre films and I have yet to see any of his other work, but Izo ranks up there with any Lynch, Cronenberg, Kaufman type film. I went into this film knowing absolutely nothing about it and left knowing absolutely nothing about it. I can take some wild guesses, the film could be about death and rebirth, or about the amount of violence in todays society. It is never clear, and some may argue that this was Miike's point and it's always been his way of storytelling. Remember, just because it's weird and from an acclaimed director, doesn't make the film good.


Whether Miike wanted to send a message through this film, or if he just wanted to have violence after violence after violence, his message gets lost amidst the blood shed. The film does have some moments that I was able to pick out and understand (Running along the infinity symbol and waking up near a river) other then that I was lost from start to finish.

While watching the film it felt like I was watching somebody else play a repetitive bad video game. All you need to know about it is that he kills one person after the other...after the other...after the other. There is really nothing else to this film. If there is, then I lost it because all I saw was blood up on the screen.

If you think that you will like this type of film....think again. I'm all for senseless violence, but this is taking it one step too far. Even for Izo's own personal hell of only killing people it goes a little to far. I was laughing more throughout the film then being horrified, or appreciative.

The film does excel at gore. It has some nice blood spurting scenes and some nice sword getting stuck half way through a man's face scenes. This would be the only highlight of the film, if you're a gore fan and only want to see blood shed and killing, without any story what-so-ever, then this may be a film for you. Izo doesn't care who he kills, it can be thugs, business men, women, or even children.

The film showcases some nice artistic shots and I am definitely interesting in seeing other Miike films, in hopes that maybe I can understand his work more. Izo has terrible acting, but the direction is quite good. I was surprised to see that Miike was able to keep the same tone of killing people throughout the entire 2 hour movie.

If you go into this film and understand whatever it was meant to showcase, then bravo, you have done more then I can say. If you go to see this film and love it for it's over-the-top gore and useless killing, bravo again. Although for now, this film can circle it's own infinity line and never come back into my DVD player.

4.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Brother's Grimm (Terry Gilliam)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/the_brothers_grimm/heath_ledger/grimm2.jpg


"Grimm Has Great Set + Costume Designs, But Lacks The Magic It Needs To Be Entertaining."

Two brothers, Will and Jake Grimm are traveling con-artists. They sucker small towns into paying them to get rid of ghost and witches that they create. Although when a town has a real witch problem, The Brothers Grimm are sent. The only problem is, they have no clue what they're doing.

After watching this film, I believe Terry Gilliam also had no idea what he was doing. The Brother Grimm is a film with so much potential that it could have been a marvelous eye-popping magical adventure. Unfortunately we have to sit through a long winded film with horrible dialogue and cardboard acting.

Matt Damon is miscast in this Gilliam adventure, he tries to play his part with a sense of comedy. The only problem is the writing material isn't funny and Damon can't pull off comedy. Heath Ledger is Damon's brother, who's in love with the town cursed loon. Here Ledger is a bumbling, not too brave, child-like shy younger brother. Monica Beluccia has little to no screen time and only appears near the climax of the film.

Gilliam is a great director and had a chance to take tons of fairy tales and make them into some sick twisted funny film. The Brother Grimm comes off too childish and Hollywood. Gilliam should have made the film darker, then it's comedic tone could really take off. The entire first half of the film is a total bore, I almost fell asleep, until the climax.

The climax isn't very big or explosive in anyway, but it did somehow keep me awake. You know with every fairytale that in the end they live happily ever after, so there is no danger in whether or not any of the characters make it out alive, cause they will. Peter Stormare was the most annoying character throughout this entire film. His accent made my ears bleed, along with every other French accent in the movie. It was horrible to listen to, especially with such weak dialogue to boot.

The special effects are too amazing at all, they don't even come off as campy, just crappy. Where Grimm does get it's points from is the great costume and set designs. Gilliam and his crew has taken us back to the 18th century and given us a wonderful world to marvel at. It is quite impressive. It's too sad to say that with the chaos going on on screen, it's hard to appreciate such beauty.

Brother's Grimm had a lot going for it, and if Gilliam took another approach, could have possibly pulled off a really great film. It's too bad that the horrible writing and acting drag this film to become one of the worst of 2005. The Brother's Grimm should exterminate this film instead of evil.

4/10

[Pyro Tramp]

I enjoyed Izo quite a bit, you might want to check out OG's review of it.

In regards to Miike, it's definitely his most 'out-there' film that i've seen. I think some of the problem may be in the bad subtitle translations, a lot of the dialogue seemed ridiculously cheap. I reckon you should give it another go though.

[Tacitus]

I enjoyed Izo quite a bit, you might want to check out OG's review of it.

In regards to Miike, it's definitely his most 'out-there' film that i've seen. I think some of the problem may be in the bad subtitle translations, a lot of the dialogue seemed ridiculously cheap. I reckon you should give it another go though.

I thought that the character of Izo personified the guilt of a Nation, possibly the guilt of a World where a bi-product of harsh political change (Revolution, if you will) is bloodshed. I need to watch it again though.

As to Izo being any good or not, well it's typical Miike turned up a few notches so I knew what to expect. It's hard going, possibly hard enough for a lot of people to not give the film another chance, but I don't like being spoonfed all the time. ;)

[Pyro Tramp]

I don't like being spoonfed all the time. ;)

And that's the main reason i liked it so much.

[OG-]

I think IZO is an absolutely brilliant film. I think Miike took a deadly simple concept and turned it into a series of life lessons. Each scene speaks volumes about society and human nature, but no two scenes are ever the same.

Miike created a character that embodies the very fabric of the sum of everything in society today. Mixed in with the two hours of seemingly non-linear and repetitive violence we see the complete rape of mother nature, rampant and vampiric consumerism, true love, shattered love, shady business practices, birth of new, fresh life, death, exploitation of religion and even a comment on pop-up advertising. IZO is a landmark of a film, in my opinion. There isn't anything else like it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

SUSPIRIA (Dario Argento)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/international_classics/suspiria/susanna_javicoli/suspiria1.jpg

"The Visuals Make This Film Scary"

A young American woman travels to Europe to attend a school for dancing. When she begins to notice creepy images and sounds around the buildings she soon discovers that there is dark evil behind the walls.

Dario Argento is known as the "Master of the Macabre". He has a very devoted cult following and granted he should. Argento has an impressive eye for colour and a great ear for music in his films to give them the uneasy feel of something eerie. Even though Suspiria is deemed his best work, it fails to keep the creep factor and shock value one would expect from the hands of Argento, and becomes a film that is more artistic then scary.

Argento basically disregards the plot and decides to focus on colours and music to scare his audience. He does this beautifully, Suspiria is one of the few horror films that uses colour to it's advantage. The reds, blues and greens used in the film fit perfectly for each scene and turns them into a visual nightmare. Argento takes these scenes up a notch by adding eerie music, that blends with the colour scheme and go down in history as some of the scariest scenes in horror cinema.

Suspiria opens with one of the most brutal deaths ever filmed on screen. A poor woman running away from her nightmares is stabbed, hung, stabbed again, ripped open and her heart stabbed, yet again. It is truly brutal and will stay in your mind well after the film is finished. The film has a hard time trying to continue it's shock and entertainment value after that scene though. Aside from two mediocre scenes that involve a dog's bite to the jugular and a room full of barbed wires, Suspiria falls victim to it's own success.

You may be wondering why with all this beautiful work done on this film did I not enjoy it? Well, I did to an extent. It is a beautiful film and it is filmed very well from a director that knows exactly what he wanted to do. The only problem is that the film, with all it's artistic merit is boring. Yes, it is boring. When you want a horror film about witches and demons, you want something to keep you either on the edge of your seat or hiding behind a blanket. Other then the opening death scene the film is just a film to respect, not fear. I respect this film, I hold it in high regard for it's technical achievements, but for entertainment value, Suspiria fails to keep my attention. Suspiria is Argento's high point film, it is his best, but it's not at the same time.

If you're a fan of Argento and appreciate his style, or a style like his, this film will astound you, you'll be in for a treat. If you want to see one of the most brutal deaths filmed for the screen, watch the beginning, then turn it off. Suspiria is an overrated film that is getting acknowledgements in the areas that it shouldn't

6/10

[Pyro Tramp]

Did you not find the music began to grate after a while?

[TheUsualSuspect]

CAPOTE (Bennett Miller)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/sony_pictures_classics/capote/philip_seymour_hoffman/capote5.jpg


"And The Oscar For Best Actor Goes To..."


Truman Capote, a writer for The New Yorker, travels to Kansas after hearing a story about a brutal murder of a family. Capote digs deep into the story, believing that this story will be his greatest work ever. So he can have the perfect ending Capote develops a rather close relationship with one of the killers, Perry Smith. The book becomes one of the greatest books ever written, it is, In Cold Blood.

Philip Seymour Hoffman has always been very good in everything he does. From small roles such as Boogie Nights and Cold Mountain, Hoffman always lit up the screen. With Capote, he is able is showcase his talent, as the main star. If you thought Jamie Foxx was brilliant as RAY, then you will be awe-struck by what Hoffman does with Capote. Come Oscar time, get ready to hear "And the Oscar For Best Actor In A Motion Picture Goes To....Philip Seymour Hoffman"

In the past couple of years, the Best Actor and Best Actress winners, Jamie Foxx and Charlize Theron gave brilliant performances in mediocre films. Here, Bennett Miller is able to keep up with the performance and the story. Granted, the movie does drag on in parts and is a tad boring, Capote is one of the better films that is going to be rewarded for it's performances. Miller makes us feel comfortable throughout the movie because he knows that everyone will be amazed by Hoffman's performance, so when we see the actual killings, it strikes a cord. We don't expect it, it comes out of nowhere. The second half of the film is the better half, it where Hoffman's performance really drives the film.

Catherine Keener did not amaze me too much. She did a decent job, but her being given an Oscar nomination just proves that there aren't very many good supporting performances out there. Keener's smile always gives her performance away, you see right through the character and all you're left with is Keener. Chris Cooper has too little screen time to work with. Granted, Capote only uses him for information, like he does with the killers.

The film does fault with it's pace. Even though it is better then the other films I mentioned, it does go on and on. I almost fell asleep, until Hoffman really got things going. The film is just really depressing and slow moving that it's uncomfortable.

Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance, is by fay, the best performance of the year, no doubt. It is the best performance in years. Like Foxx with RAY, Hoffman becomes Capote. Hoffman is so good as Capote it's frightening. He gives us a unique, uneasy, bold, sympathetic, cold, human, performance. Hoffman does the most subtle things with this character that it just brings it life more and more each time, whether it's playing with his ear, or the way he hold a cigarette or even how he holds a glass when he drinks. Every little detail is nailed perfectly by Hoffman. Hoffman makes this film what it is, one of the best performances of the century. Don't listen to all the critics raving about it, don't listen to all the award shows, go and see for yourself.

The script shows Capote befriending one of the killers so he can write a book. Capote seems cold and heartless, but then you see what the murderers did and you question yourself, do they deserve it. Capote feels like he is the the middle of a tug of war, between the evil of the killers, and the gentleness he sees. Again, Hoffman pulls this off beautifully. There is no other actor who can portray this character as good as Hoffman has done, and no one should try because they will ultimately fail.

See Capote for the riveting performance, then again, that's why everyone is seeing it anyway.

8/10

[adidasss]

how can you give a film 8 out of 10 if you almost fell asleep and it's pretty boring overall? no matter how good an actors performance is, that alone can't make a good film...and judging by your description, this one really wasn't....so why the high mark?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Because the performance is that good.

I almost feel alseep through the first half of the film, but when the better half started it had my full attention. A film can be boring, and get a high mark...out of appreication for what it has accomplished.

I found suspiria to be really boring and not very good at all, in which case it would usually get a 3 or a 4, but because Argento uses colour perfectly, it got a higher rating, not an 8 like Capote, but hiugher nonetheless.

It's one of those films that is great, but you won't watch again.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=8967

Much like some films in there.

[nebbit]

Thanks Suspect for the great reviews, I can't wait for Capote to start here. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

BATMAN & ROBIN (Joel Schumacher)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/batman___robin/_group_photos/chris_o_donnell3.jpg

"Bad Writing, Bad Cast, Bad Directing, mix them together and you get Batman & Robin."

The Dark Knight, with his partner, the boy-wonder, must save Gotham once more. This time from the clutches of the Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy. With Ivy having the duo pitted against each other with her love potion, Freeze decides to cover the entire city in ICE. To make matters worse, their trusty butler Alfred is dying, from the same disease that took Mr. Freeze's wife. Can the help of Alfred's niece, BATGIRL be enough to stop Freeze and Ivy?

Joel Schumacher took on the role of bringing the Batman series into a new direction, geared towards younger kids. Forever, although not of the same caliber of Burton's films, was a nice new touch to the series. This time, the power behind WB wants the series to go even younger, and now we have a film full of cheesy one liners, crappy product placements and well...Elle Macpherson.

Batman and Robin continues the same style that was in Forever. Using the new bat suits with nipples, multiple villains, glow in the dark scenes and new crime fighters. Although, it takes a turn for the worse. Bad writing, bad cast, bad directing, mix them together and you get Batman and Robin.

Right from the start you know that the film is going to be bad, because we see Mr. Freeze, horribly miss-cast, spitting out one-liners the likes of "Chill" "Time to kick some ICE" and "Ice to see you!" This is not like the villain at all. Freeze is suppose to be a skinny, intelligent scientist. The opening fight scenes are terrible, as we see Freeze's gun get knocked out of his hands and then for some reason fly and stick to the top of the museum dinosaur. Playing hockey? The entire scene is too laughable, and shows you exactly what you are in-store for.

Another miscast would be the capped crusader himself. George Clooney, is not Bruce Wayne, or Batman for that matter. He doesn't have the charm, or the looks, or even the tone. If you really want to narrow it down, he doesn't even have the mouth for it. Clooney seemed too relaxed in the role, it seemed like he was just playing himself. Don't even get me started on Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. First of all, she shouldn't even be the in film, too many characters, and secondly, if you indeed wanted her in the film, then make sure you have an actress you knows how to act. Seeing her spit out her lines was horrible. Then again, acting along side Chris O'Donnell, she is Oscar worthy.

The music, not as good as the Burton/Elfman score, does bring a smile to my face. It is a new style for the new films and it is really good. It fits perfectly with the whole Superhero/crime fighter style of the film. Other then Thurman, this is the only redeeming factor of the film.

Thurman, what a beautiful woman, who guess what is able to act. She pulls off Poison Ivy perfectly. She may have annoyed some people, but that it exactly what Poison Ivy does. Posion Ivy is a beautiful red headed, green wearing, mother nature loving bombshell. With Thurman having her own input on her character and how she wears her hair/uniform it comes off as a little bit better then the character create din the comics/animated show.

A lot of the scenes will make you laugh at how terrible they are, as well as make you roll your eyes at how convenient some things are, such as Freeze having those two cures in his suit for Alfred. Or how you can change the position of satellites to unfreeze the city. Not to mention the plot holes involving that.

Out of all four films, this one is definitely the weakest. In fact, it's so weak, it's one of the weakest films put to screen. I understand that the filmmakers were making it for kids and trying to have fun with the project...but when you have something that has a huge fan base, you do not mess with the formula. Burton had done it right, twice, and Schumacher had one good hit, here he misses the ball completely. It's nice to see that they are re-starting the series again, this time for the true fans of the series...not Mcdonalds kids.

3/10

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy, I am not a big fan of this also :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ghost Ship (Steve Beck)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/ghost_ship/_group_photos/desmond_harrington3.jpg


"Aside From The Opening Scene, This Movie Can Drown"

After finding a passenger ship a small crew decided to tug it back to land, but run into a few ghost problems along the way. Actually Ghost Ship has a good premise. Ghosts on a ship, so really the victims have no way of escaping and you can possibly be in for some good death scenes and a creepy atmosphere. Ghost Ship fails to deliver any of these things. Aside from a good opening scene, this movie can drown to the bottom of the sea.

Byrne and crew act like pieces of wood that float down some kind of contaminated river, along with their acting chops is the script, the music composer and the director. Ghost ship simply fails to deliver good scares and creepy chills, but does leave you with a headache. Right from the beginning we get a great death scene, with a boat wire ripping through the torso's of the crew, with the exception of a small little girl, who was too short. After viewing such a good scene, one would imagine much more to come, too bad the movie takes an unexpected turn for the worse.

We need to sit through horrible dialogue, even for a horror movie and one of the stupidest death scenes ever. The black guy with his pants down, falling down an elevator shaft? PLEASE!!!! If I could, I'd wrap this in a treasure chest, fill it with cement and throw it in the ocean, hoping no one will ever find it. The music does little to help with any creepy atmosphere left in the film and actually begins to irritate some. Ghost Ship manages to become one of the worst big budget horror movies created. The title for worst horror movie ever created, big or small, goes to Carnivore. In fact Carnivore is the worst movie ever made.

Do yourself a favor and skip useless trash like this. If you get to watch it for free, stay for the first five or ten minutes, then get your ass out of the room before you damage your eyes even further. I'm warning you, this movie is that bad.

3/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

RED EYE (Wes Craven)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dreamworks_skg/red_eye/_group_photos/rachel_mcadams4.jpg


"Manages To Keep The Audience Entertained For It's Short Time Span."

A young woman who works at a hotel is on her way home from her grandmother's funeral. While her plane is delayed, she encounters a young good looking man by the name of Jack. Although Jack is not all the he appears to be. After the thread for the life of her father, the woman does everything Jack tells her to...including pulling some strings for the assassination of a politician. Can she get escape her kidnapper, save the politician and her father in time? Wes Craven revived the horror genre with a little film by the name of SCREAM. Countless films later on down the road used the same formula, but did not see the same success. After 2 more sequels and a crappy werewolf flick, Craven uses his talents to bring thrills this time, instead of screams. Red Eye is this years sleeper hit of a thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. It does have it's faults, mainly with the plot, but manages to keep the audience entertained for it's short time span.

Red eye clocks in around 80 or so minutes, so it has a lot to fit in with that time period. Craven is able to map out the film and give the characters a good enough time of an introduction so that we can enjoy the rest of the film on the edge of our seats. Even with s good chunk of the film being on a plane, it uses it's suspense well. Unfortunately with every film on a plane, it's hard to take some of it seriously, Red Eye is no exception, but it does do it better then Flighplan.

Red Eye is a step up for Craven after a few stinkers, and is not too bad of a film. It has a strong young cast headed by the beautiful and talented Rachel McAddams, who is on a hot streak. Cillian Murphy plays villains so well, his cold blue eyes are haunting enough, not to mention his mysterious face. He is the perfect choice for Jack and after this performance and his turn in as the Scarecrow for Batman Begins, I'd rather much see him play villains then hero's...case in point 28 days later.Brian Cox is McAddams father, he doesn't have much of a role, it could be viewed as a cameo.

As soon as the plane lands it's a non-stop chase fiasco, running through terminals, in cars, and through a house. Whether or not any part of it is actually believable is to be debated, but it can be forgivable. In this type of film you would expect the old clichés to happen, such as a battery dying on a cell phone in the oh so desperate time of need.

But there is only so much that can be forgiven. When you're on a plan and you head butt someone and knock them out cold...someone on the plane must have been able to notice something. The only person to actually notice something is a little girl...that serves no purpose to the story what-so-ever. Her tripping the bad guy could have been axed and instead of him have a hard time getting through the crowd.No secret service agent would let a room change at the last minute, regardless of what the politician and the family have to say or even after the room is checked. Especially when the windows are so huge a sniper could pick them off one by one.

Red Eye is a film that is a rental, when you're in the mood for a good time and do not want to think very much. If you go into this film analyzing it, then you'll be laughing throughout and you'll be disappointed with the results. Instead enjoy it for what it is...a thriller with car chases and things that go boom.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

DOOM (Andrzej Bartkowiak)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/doom/_group_photos/dwayne__the_rock__johnson1.jpg


"At Least It's Better Then What Uwe Boll Would Have Done"

A group of MARINES are sent out to a space station when problems start to arise. Although, once they get there...they encounter an enemy they are not ready for.

DOOM was a revolutionary game, it still has many fans today and Hollywood wants to cash in on the franchises success. Well, Doom does some things right, and that begins with not having Uwe Boll as a director, that's right, DOOM is in fact better then what Uwe Boll would have done...or probably ever will do.I'm not saying it's a good movie, it's pretty bad, but I'll give it kudos for actually trying to stay true to the source and try to be good.

Doom stars the so called new action hero "THE ROCK" and "I Was In Lord Of The Rings" Karl Urban. Both are macho MARINE guys who lead a small group of macho men into some dark corridors. Their enemy lurks in the dark and attack out of nowhere. This was terrifyingly creepy in the game, but for the film is lacks anything that would constitute as a scare. It does follow what the game has mapped out and excluding one particular scene, it doesn't try anything to re-invent and add on.

The Rock is horrible in this film. He's not too bad of an actor, The Rundown is a good role for him, this is not. It is actually hurtful to see the actors try to act in this film. What's even worse would be the so called evil creatures. Not at all scary, or even "dangerous". They do kill the MARINES one by one, but unlike in certain alien films there is no suspense when wait for these things to appear.

The fight scenes are terrible. One punch and the person will go flying across the room. Even if the two who are fighting are "pure evil" and "in god mode" it doesn't fit well with the film. It also tries a little bit with a subplot of how a brother and sister apparently dis-like each other at the beginning, but near the end, they put their differences aside and pull through together....how touching and clichéd.

One scene that ultimately makes or breaks this film for the fans is obviously the FPS, First Person Shooter (for those non-gamers out there) scene. It was a cheesy, but nice touch. It stays true to the source and I commend this film for actually doing that. The main character is in the "invincible" state and goes around shooting the creatures....that is pure DOOM CHEAT MODE and it was really neat to see.

Is this the worst video game adaption? Far from it, that goes for anything BOLL can turn out, is this the best, nope. Video games that become movies have great material to extract from, but fail to capitalize on it. Until something with some concrete stuff breaks from games to film (still waiting for Metal Gear) then I'm sorry, but films like this is what we'll have to sit through.

4/10

[nebbit]

May give Doom a miss. :yup: that Suspect :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Good Night & Good Luck (George Clooney)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_independent/good_night__and_good_luck_/david_strathairn/goodnight3.jpg


"Know What You're Getting Yourself Into....Or Else Be Bored"


In the 1950's Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly looked to bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy. Through much controversy they stood up against all odds and brought down the Senator.

George Clooney is at the directorial chair for a second time. After taking on "Confession of a Dangerous Mind" I was eager to see what he had in store for us a second time around. With Good Night and Good Luck, although not perfect by any means, does not disappoint.

Good Night is a movie that has class, which is evident as soon as the bold black and white hits the screen. Good Night has classic film written all over it, and is a new classic film for this era. Clooney knew exactly what he wanted for this period piece, down to every little detail. Such as smoking, which seems to appear in every single scene. The smoke from the burning cigarettes look beautiful on screen, especially with the black and white. Clooney uses actual footage of McCarthy and the trials which blends in with the black and white of Good Night.

Good Night And Good Luck is not for the younger crowd, as it's not very "entertaining". Nothing really seems to happen in it, it's geared towards an older crowd. It's odd to explain how the film made me feel, because even with nothing much happening I felt totally into the film. It could've been the content in the film or they way Clooney presented it. In the final scene, I was surprised to see it come up so fast, but knew it was going to end as soon as that scene was finished. This can't be said for all, since nothing really happens in it, you must be really intrigued by the content to not feel like the picture is dragging on and on...*cough* CAPOTE *cough*

A gripe with the film is the lack of it's supporting cast. With star power such as Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey Jr and Frank Langella it would have been nice to see more of them. Robert Downey Jr. is basically useless, he really serves no purpose other then the fact that he was an actual character in that time period. The same goes for Jeff Daniels, Frank Langella although does serve a purpose and does get more of a spotlight then the others, but he could have used a little more.

Good Night's strongest feature would be David Strathairn's performance. Although, it's no where near as great as Hoffman's Capote, Strathairn seems to finally get his place in the spotlight. After many years of supporting roles, Strathairn is able to break-out and shine in the film and is acknowledged just as well. He gives a powerful performance and if the film was done in any other year, then I would really be amazed by it.

Good Night is a film that Clooney can be proud of. It's a big improvement over Confessions and is one of the better films of the year. You just need to know what's going on with it's story, or you can be lost throughout the film. If you're lost, then you'll ultimately be bored out of your mind. Don't go to be entertained, go to watch a film with a message, and for Strathairn's performance of Murrow.

8/10

[Strummer521]

Don't go to be entertained, go to watch a film with a message, and for Strathairn's performance of Murrow.

Didn't you find it entertaining? :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

For the most part yes I did. Although, I predict that the general public will not. Which is why I put the warning at the end.

[Strummer521]

For the most part yes I did. Although, I predict that the general public will not. Which is why I put the warning at the end.

Ok...fair point. Just checking. :)

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review Sussy :D

[_deleted]

The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy (Garth Jennings)


http://www.cineramabios.nl/films/595.jpg


"Don't Panic...Guide is an acquired taste"


When Arthur Dent learns that a friend of his is actually an alien with advanced knowledge of Earth's destruction, he is transported off the Earth seconds before it is exploded to make way for a new hyperspace motorway. And as if that's not enough, throw in being wanted by the police, Earth II, an insane electronic encyclopedia, no tea whatsoever, a chronically depressed robot and the search for the meaning of life, and you've got the greatest adventure off Earth.

What is the meaning of life, that is the ultimate question that men seek and in Guide, we get an answer. Unfortunatly we don't understand the question. Although for now on i'll by more attention to the number 42.

Guide is full of british humour, which to some is not funny and don't get it, but to others is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In guide, it lies somewhere in between. Right from the beginning we see dolphins singing, because they know that the end is coming, and before the earth is destroyed, the dolphins are saved. Funny? Well, I guess it all depends on your sense of humour.

In Guide it's the zany off-beat way it presents itself that makes it what it is. Whether the main character become yarn or flowers, you look at the screen with an odd questionable feeling. You don't know what's going on and ask yourself are you actually watching this taking place on screen? The quirky zany off-beat style is littered throughout this film, and if you can appreciate it and like it, then you'll enjoy yourself a lot better, other-wise this film is just a treat for the eyes.

The film has lots of unique visuals, I especially liked the team re-creating Earth II. Whether it be filling up the ocean or painting the mountains. All seeing this fly by on a train type creation. This is all happening after you fly through the galaxy on this small little thing.

When you have to stay true to the source, you have many people that will be judgemental. Especially since you have to cram so much material into a 110 minute film. I never read the books, so I can't tell you how true to it the film is. I can tell you that there are alot of inside jokes from the book though, which will either hit or miss, depending on if your a fan or not.

Sam Rockwell stole the show as the president of the galaxy. He brings a unique style to every role that he does, and here is no different. When you let Rockwell go over-the-top and have fun with his character, you know he will go to the extreme. In guide we see him having so much fun with the material that you beg for him to be on the screen more.

Jennings had the hard task of taking on this immense epic, since this his first outting, I have to say he did a good job. If Guide had an more established director behind the camera, it could have been in the style of Lord of the Rings. But what we get here is just a fun good time, nothing wrong with that either, but when the movie is direct with it's intentions it shouldn't be all fun and games.

7/10





Yeah, so this is pretty much one of my favorite movies of all time. I agree that its not for everyone. Deffinatly a film that people with select senses of humor will understand. As far as the directing abilities, I think he did an amazing job. I too have not read the book but I am reading the sequal, and the movie seems to capture just what the book was trying to say.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Three...Extremes (Takashi Miike/Fruit Chan/ Chan-wook Park)


http://www.dragonsdenuk.com/reviews/three_extremes3.jpg


"Three Stories, Three Directors, Three Visions...Three Extremes"


Three...Extremes is a film with three different stories being told. Dumplings, Cut and Box. All of which have a horrific tale routed in it's story.

Three extremes take two talented directors and one unknown (from my perspective anyway) and let them carve their own original piece of a puzzle that fits together in Three...Extremes. While I'm still impartial to Miike, he does have talent. He has beautiful imagery in his films, it's just that they also tend to have some story lacking. With his short, BOX, Miike gets you to think about what the outcome is going to be. His films are always twisted in some kind of way and asks the audience to look deeper into what they just saw. With BOX, he ultimately disappoints with the ending. Cut, the second short directed by Park has an uncanny resemblance to "SAW", as some might say. It deals with the psycho kidnapping someone and getting them to play a game, or someone dies.

CUT was my favourite segment out of the three and throws the viewer a curve ball at the conclusion. Which leads you to believe one of two things. Do you believe the events that you just saw and take them as face value, or is there some mind tricks at play. Finally, the first short actually, is Dumplings from Fruit Chan. A name I never heard of but would like to hear more of. Dumplings doesn't have the edge that CUT has, or the beautiful images that BOX has, but it does have the disturbing factor. Which lands Dumplings in the good books.

CUT is my favourite segment and Park did a great job at hinting that the film is not EXACTLY what it seems and it has the "oh so cool" factor that this film needed. BOX, being the second film that I've seen from Miike still leaves me in the grey with him. I want to seek out more of his work, but am hesitant because it hasn't impressed all that much. BOX isn't all that bad, it's just not all that good and the viewer feels cheated by the end. Some might feel the same with CUT and be left very confused with the actions of some characters, but it worked out it's in favour for some strange feeling.

I'm going to let the cat out of the bag and tell you what Dumplings is about...eating aborted fetuses. Gross? Yes. Disturbing? Yes. Why did I like such a thing? Fruit handled it very well, I have yet to see the full cut of the short but it leaves me wanting to know more. The ending...again with these endings, left me very confused. What was with the tongue? It didn't flow with the rest of the film? Is she human?

Finally, if you're a fan of Asian cinema, give this a little taste test. It's three for the price of one, and you'll get some sort of enjoyment out of at least two of them. If you're the type that is uneasy hearing the crunching sounds of a women eating an aborted fetus, you might want to skip these and look for Bambi.

7.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Waiting... (Rob McKittrick)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/waiting/luis_guzman/waiting1.jpg


"A good chunk of the population at some point in their life has worked in the food industry"

In the style of CLERKS, Waiting tells the story of a group of employees at the restaurant Shennangins. Their hi-jinks, games around the kitchen and jokes that they play on the customers to make their job seem less crappy.

CLERKS was a film that changed cinema, not drastically but it did make it's mark on it. Here, Waiting takes a little note from CLERKS and is able to spin its own originality on the yarn and make Waiting quite enjoyable. Granted I work in the food business which makes the film even more enjoyable. Waiting strides because of it's recognizable, but not star powered cast.

A good chunk of the population at some point in their life has worked in the food industry, and the stories that they can tell could stretch for miles. In waiting what may seem outrageous to some, is quite honestly everyday happenings for others. I've never heard of the game that they play in Waiting, but wouldn't doubt it for a second.

Dane Cook stands out here as Floyd, one of the cooks. The energy that he puts into the small role is outstanding. Every single character has their own fiddle, and the actor knows how to play it. Chi McBride and Luis Guzman, along with Cook really make this film. A very good casting job on the filmmakers part. Ryan Reynolds plays the same character that he did with Van Wilder. The "I'm so cool, everyone loves me/is jealous of me" routine. While it was okay in this film, I would have liked to see a little bit more from him.

It's not so gross out as some would expect, if you idea of someone tampering with your food does gross you out, avoid this. I was surprised to see a bush shot, fake or real, it was out of nowhere. You would expect the joke to be in the film, but not to actually see it. Waiting probably the best film about the food industry.

Waiting is able to connect with so many people and plays it's comedy off their misery. Crappy tippers, foreigners, friends laughing at you...you can either laugh with it and respect it, or remember the "bad" times and loath this film. To say that it is a rip off of CLERKS is false. If that were true, then every movie about people in a dead end job is a rip off of CLERKS. Both are "A Day In The Life Style" bu other then that the films are different, and both equally funny.

Waiting is a film that previous food employees will find funny. If you have never worked with food, but have a sense of humour, enjoy it, don't be disgusted and afraid to ever go to a restaurant again. Waiting a film to enjoy and laugh with, and that's the bottom line.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Christmas With The Kranks (Joe Roth)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/revolution_studios/christmas_with_the_kranks/jamie_lee_curtis/kranks7.jpg


"It's Time For Tim Allen To Move Away From The Holiday Films."

After their daughter leaves for the Peace Corps, Luther and Nora Krank decide to skip Christmas all together. No decorations, no gifts, no parties and no holiday spirit. Instead they decide to "save" money by taking a cruise...this does not settle very well with their neighborhood.

Christmas With The Kranks seems like the perfect movie to start up a new series, Griswold style. With two comedy powerhouses in the starring roles, Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis, and with Christpher Columbus penning the script, Kranks had potential to last longer then just one film. But Joe Roth makes the film so utterly boring and unbelievably unfunny, that instead of dreading any sequel in the works you dread the entire experience that you just went through watching this thickheaded attempt at a funny film.

Where does the torture begin? Well, if I had to pinpoint the moment it started when the opening credits hit the screen. The bottom line is that Kranks is simply not funny at all. In what is suppose to be a family holiday comedy, Kranks is nothing more then a dim-witted, inane, atrocious piece of crap. Tim Allen should honestly stay away from anything Christmas related for the rest of his career, or sooner or later the Toolman's career will be over.

Jaimie Lee Curtis and Tim Allen do not work very well together as a husband and wife. There was no real chemistry and neither of them manage to get any laughter out of the audience at any point in the film. Being scared of your neighbors to the point where you are scared to leave the house is not funny. Getting botox to the face and not being able to drink is not funny. Maybe is Allen and Curtis had better material to extract any piece of comedy from then this film would be one level above abominable.

As well as not being funny Kranks is predictable. Scrooge finds a heart. That scrooge is Allen and the heart comes from giving away his cruise to an old man across the street, with whom he does not even like. After the Kranks decide to throw a Christmas party after all, all the neighbors join in and everyone lives happily ever after, except those that had to sit through this thing. There's not one interesting character in the whole film, not even one of the Christmas Crazed neighbors is able to connect or get any part of enjoyment from. Akroyd seemed okay in the role he did, but that doesn't make the role funny.

Joe Roth has yet to make one entertaining film and after this and Freedomland, I predict he never will. He should stick to producing and let someone with a little bit more talent stay behind the camera. Roth had no clue how to direct with the talent that he had. If he had lead the cast in some kind of direction maybe the film would have had a stronger comedic tone. With not a funny joke or scene in the entire film, or even a story-line to keep the audience from leaving their seats to slit their wrists, Kranks manages to make it to the bottom of the heap in a list of bad movies.

Everybody involved with this thing should have known that it was going nowhere. It's main draw in was the star power and everyone involved should read Comedy For Dummies, so the next time a garbage script like this comes their way, they are able to burn it.

1.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Hoodwinked (Cory Edwards)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/weinstein_company/hoodwinked/patrick_warburton/hoodwinked2.jpg



"It Lacks Good Animation and Adventure, But Give It Credit For Being Unique."

The "true" story of Little Red Riding Hood, told through four different perspectives from four different characters, Red, Granny, The Wolf, and The Woodsman. These quirky characters are from from the usual suspects. Can the detectives straighten the story out and figure out who the local "Goody Bandit" is?

Hoodwinked is one of the new films being released from the Weinstein Company. With top notch animation out there, Hoodwinked, on it's first look, looks to be a couple years behind. It lacks good animation and adventure, but give it credit for being unique. Hoodwinked has star power voices behind it, including Glenn Close, James Belushi, Anthony Anderson, Anne Hathaway and the great Patrick Warburton...who is the perfect choice for any voice work.

Hoodwinked is a film that lacks great animation. When you put it up against the likes of Shrek 2, Robots and Finding Nemo. Hoodwinked looks to be in last place. So where does it pick up steam, with the material. It's not falling to the ground funny, or groundbreaking, but it is something different then the normal animated fare. The characters in the story aren't very memorable, but it's the people behind the voices that make them who they are. Warburton is hilarious as The Wolf and stands out in the entire film. Andy Dick, who I normally would find annoying, is actually likable here.

The film starts right into the action and moves along pretty fast. Within minutes we are hearing the first story from Red's perspective. All the stories seemed to intertwine very well and made for much more enjoyment. If they did not intertwine at all, I believe the film would be a lot less enjoyable. Everything blended well, although the one character, The Woodsman, voiced by Belushi...awkwardly. Seems to have no purpose in the story what so ever. His story doesn't intertwine, or is funny at all. Are we suppose to laugh at his stupidity?

The characters range from goats, to frogs to actual people. Along with The Wolf and Dick's Bunny, the photographer squirrel, who always seems to have a bit to much coffee will entertain the little ones. Hoodwinked has enough jokes for both the kids and adults. The kids will laugh at the zany characters, like the singing goat or the coffee addicted squirrel. Whereas the adults will lean more towards the comedy from Warburton.

The writing and strong voice acting is what makes Hoodwinked good. It's nothing amazing and definitely one to rush to go see, but when you have some time on your hands and want to enjoy a movie with the kids, pick this one up. Pay attention to what happens on the screen because it will come back to play later on in the story. The ending sets up a sequel, and with a higher budget and a little bit more of a punch in an already creative writing team, then Hoodwinked 2 can be a huge success.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Eight Below (Frank Marshall)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/eight_below/8below_dogs3.jpg


"You Can't Go Into This Film Expecting Not To Cry"

With major snow storms heading their way, Antartic exploring teams must leave their team of sled dogs behind as they fly off for their own survival. Jerry, feeling very distraught, tries everything he can to go back and bring those dogs back.

Inspired by a true story, Eight Below tells the magnificent story of survival of a team of sled dogs who were left behind in a major snow storm. I can watch films in which people lose their limbs, such as KILL BILL. But if any movie where an animal is in danger, I tend to get a little tear trickle down my face. Eight Below takes this idea and pushes it to the extreme. The dogs are so cute, kick-ass, adorable, courageous and lovable, you can't go into this film expecting not to cry.

Paul Walker is upstaged by these dogs, and Jason Biggs is upstaged by Paul Walker. With saying that, you shouldn't see this movie for those two actors, one of which I didn't even know was in this film.

The dogs are the main focus of the story and even though you know that one or two dogs WILL die, you can't help but feel the tears build up inside when you see it on the screen. Watching the trailers, I knew that OLD JACK was going to die, his name is OLD JACK for crying out loud. It's even emotional for the death of the one dog, who's name I couldn't even remember. That doesn't mean that you don't connect with him, you do see the significant scar on his eye.


Watching the dogs on the screen made me very fearful for their fate. Every second that went by, I was praying that they would not get into any danger. Of course whenever they were, especially regarding an evil seal, I was on the edge of my seat. Eight Below is a Disney film that aims for an older audience then Disney would usually shoot for. It has many tearful scenes, many gross-out scenes and one that I'll admit, made me jump.

Marshall manages to keep the tension throughout the film, even when we are not with the dogs. Our hearts are still with them, but we are watching Walker teach some kids how to kayak. Eight Below contains some beautiful cinematography and it uses it's surroundings very well. The ice top mountains and star filled sky are beautiful.

The film a little lengthy, it feels like two different films in one, the second half being the more intense, emotional, heart-warming half. It was hard to be fully enjoying the movie in a theatre packed full of timid kids who are grossed out by the dogs eating birds and a whale, along with the parents telling the kids what's happening on every screen.

In the end, Eight Below is a good film, that is full of many emotional scenes, especially when the team make their way back to the station. The kids will want to see this film, but it is a little bit more intense then one would think. The bottom line is that the dogs are groovy and I would take these dogs over the penguins any day.

7.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews Suspect. :D I think I will give The Kranks a miss :yup:

[Iroquois]

Yeah, I should've done the same myself. Unfortunately I was talked into it - sucks to have two little brothers.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Failure To Launch (Tom Dey)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/failure_to_launch/_group_photos/matthew_mcconaughey5.jpg


"Fails To Launch Any Chemistry Between McConaughey & Parker"

A slacker in his thirties along with his friends all live with their parents. When the parents of Trip hear about another couples son moving out because of this woman, they hire her to go out with their son, so he can finally move out on his own.

Failure To Launch is the first romantic comedy from the director Tom Dey, who's other works include Showtime and Shanghai Noon. Dey has a lot of the right ingredients to make a successful film, but when he blended them, he must have forgot the lid, because "Failure to Launch" is a mess. With Two great stars in the title roles and a story that seems to have some potential, what went wrong?

The main problem with this film is that it, and sorry for the pun, fails to launch any chemistry between McConaughey and Parker. What made "How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days" a decent chick flick was the chemistry between Hudson and McConaughey, they played off each other perfectly. With "Failure to Launch" Parker and McConaughey seem to awkward together on the screen to really be believable. Tie in the fact that the two title characters are ALL THAT Likable to begin with, you have a pretty bad start to a film.

With the two main characters not connecting very well, you'll need to have a really good supporting cast to save the film. With the exception of the parents, Terry Bradshaw and Kathy Bates, the entire supporting cast are really just forgettable. The two best friends are the comic relief, but they are not funny. One scene that would be the stand out would be the reviving of the mockingbird. It did get a chuckle out of me, but it's something that many have seen before. As mentioned before, Bradshaw and Bates steal the movie as the parents of McConaughey. Bradshaw with his naked room, the best part in the entire film lights up the screen and is the perfect choice to play with Bates. You can tell that they enjoyed their roles and basically had fun with it, which is what two certain main stars should have done.

Of course the script follows the formula that every other romantic comedy follows. Guy meets girl, they go out, they fall out, then get back together because they love each other. So, you know step by step what is going to happen. I would like to see a romantic comedy that does something different and has it's character actually not end up together in the end. Something to come along and not follow formula.

Tom Dey was the wrong man for the job, leading his actors a long and winding road that eventually ended up nowhere. If someone that has experience in this genre was behind the camera, then they could have used their skills to make the relationships between the characters work. Dey can stick to his buddy cop movies and leave the romantic comedies to people who know how to make an on-screen romance work.

"Launch" showcases some useless, awkward and pointless scenes, involving animals that attack McConaughey. Why they do this, I still do not understand, some reason that they threw at us was because he was not "with nature". Why these things are in this film, I have no idea. It adds nothing to the film, it only makes you sit in the chair longer and wonder why you decided to see such a film.

The target audience are the young females, and they will drool over McConaughey, they will love the fact that the nerd loser friend gets the girl, they might even laugh. For the rest of the world that want to go to enjoy a film, you might want to pass, unless you're a big fan of those people involved or of the genre...and I mean a big fan.

5.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Ice Harvest (Harold Ramis)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/focus_features/the_ice_harvest/_group_photos/john_cusack2.jpg


"In Wichita Falls, The Ice Harvest Falls Flat On It's Back"

In Wichita, Kansas, Charlie has something to celebrate, and it's not Christmas. Charlie, an attorney, and his so called business partner, Vic, have just stolen $2 million from Charlie's boss. With a hit-man looking for them, Charlie and Vic have little time to get out of Wichita. Will they both get out alive, or will the money make them greedy and try to find a way to get more.

The Ice Harvest is a dark comedy, that's heavy on the dark and lite on the comedy. With Billy bob Thorton and John Cusack leading the way, being supported by Oliver Platt and Connie Nielsen and finally the comedy alumni Harold Ramis behind the camera, many would think this to be a recipe for success. It's just too bad that none of the gags work in Harvest and neither does the story.

John Cusack is a good actor and is very likable in the roles he chooses. In the Ice Harvest, he seems a little out of place. Granted, he has the right look, just not the right presence. Teamed up with Billy Bob Thorton, who was good for the role, they bounce off each other awkwardly. With a better chemistry between these two characters, then the actors could have made it work. Oliver Platt is drunk throughout the entire film. He is the comic relief, a guy for the audience to look at and pity but laugh at at the same time. Connie Nielsen plays the character wooden, no emotion. I dreaded the time she was on screen, for every second. Looks can only go so far, here they go nowhere.

Harold Ramis usually has a good funny bone thrown into his films. Here, the dark moody atmosphere is too overshadowing and leaves the comedy in the dark so much that many will miss it. Ramis creates some scenes that do get a laugh, such as which car to place the box into. There is also some nudity, with even though they go into many strip clubs seems odd here. It may just be me, but it is totally useless.

The story itself could use some work. They don't really go into the details of how they got the money, just that they got it. They also have twists and turns that try to surprise the audience, but many can see them coming from a mile away. I myself was able to see it coming once they enter the strip club for the first time. If you're a fan of dark...and I mean dark comedies, then check this one out, but don't expect to laugh too much cause the laughs just aren't there. It is more of a dark crime movie with a couple of odd placed jokes.

Randy Quaid makes a random appearance as Cusacks boss near the finale of the film. The ending of "Harvest" decides to go out with the happy ending, opposed to the dark one, which would have flowed with the rest of the film. Seeing the characters are at the end happy seem wrong here. Then again, this whole film takes so many steps in the wrong direction it hurts.

5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Inside Man (Spike Lee)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/inside_man/clive_owen/inside4.jpg


"Get Ready To Root for The Bad Guy"


Detective Frazier, is one tough cop who is too smart for his job. Dalton Russell is a bank robber, who planned the perfect bank robbery. Hostages are at stake and Frazier needs to get them out. When an unexpected guest arrives, Madaline White, Frazier begins to believe that there is more to this heist then just the money.

A Spike Lee Joint, one of his better joints if you ask me. Leaving his "pro black, con white" message in his past, Lee has made an entertaining heist film that makes you side with the bad guy just because he is cool. Right from the get-go Owen tells you the What, Why, Where, When and eventually the How on the perfect bank robbery. Hearing this, you get the impression that he will be successful in this attempt. I'm not going to tell you whether he is or isn't, but throughout the entire movie, even though you might not want to, you can't help but cheer for Owen to get away with it in the end.

While viewing the trailer, one gets the impression that Inside Man is more then just a normal heist flick and it is. It's difficult to go into an explanation of the plot without giving some bits of it away, as I've probably already have done for some. The plot of the film is interesting, although some may be expecting a bigger pay-off in the end, Inside Man does deliver the twists and turns, just not as big as some may suspect.

Lee throws in his usual character has a racist moment as he does with virtually every film he does. He also manages to have fun with the time line and give us some testimonies of the survivors, it manages to flow well with the film. Here Lee is able to keep up with what's on the screen. He makes the plot follow along smoothly, up until the end though, where the film unexpectedly goes on and on dragging the viewer with it. It has to have that clichéd ending where the detective realizes what has just happened.

The performances are top-notch. Washington delivers us another great performance as the tough cop who seems to catch on to the scheme quicker then others. Jodie Foster gives a good performance with what little she has, even if her character has no background information what so ever as to what she does or who she is. She just happens to be there and with connections. Clive Owen is great as the bad guy, even if his face is covered for 3/4 of the film. He is so cool and sly as the villain that you end up rooting for him, knowing that it's the wrong thing to do. William Dafoe rounds out the supporting cast and along with Foster, doesn't have much screen time. This is forgivable because Washington and Owen are so good on the screen that you wish the story would stick with them.

Inside Man begins as an action thriller and takes a quick turn to something a little bit more sophisticated, once we get inside the bank with our captives. The film itself will make you want to try and plan your own "perfect robbery". Lee gives us a great heist film that I'm sure will be mentioned with the best of them. If Inside Man was a bit shorter...such as cutting out some "digging hole" scenes and a better wrap up, then it could have qualified for an early start to one of the year's best films. But for now it can just stay as being an entertaining heist flick....oh yeah, get ready to root for the bad guy.

8.5/10

[susan]

thanks for the review.....looking forward to seeing this one tomorroow...

i just saw xmas with the kranks...not too bad, a lot like the book which i read at xmas time last year...but i never looked on tim allen's character as a scrooge type....but you've hit the nail on the head because i wasn't sure...

thanks for your reviews

[nebbit]

Great reviews. :yup: Thanks :D

[birdygyrl]

Thanks for the reviews. I especially liked the one on "Inside Man."

[TheUsualSuspect]

KING KONG (Peter Jackson)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/king_kong/_group_photos/andy_serkis7.jpg


"Women Will Be The Death Of Ya."

In the 1930's a film crew decides to go to the infamous "Skull Island". Once there they encounter some locals who terrorize them. After the young and beautiful Anne is taken away, the film crew and ship crew go back to the island to retrieve her. Only they do not know that Anne is being a sacrifice for a giant ape, known as KONG.

Peter Jackson, a couple years before Lord of the Rings, you probably never heard of that name. With such brilliant indie films such as Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles under his belt, one can see why no one would really know him. Once Lord of the Rings hit the screen, Jackson became a name that is constantly thrown into the same sentence with Spielberg. He even has an Oscar to his name, with such success following him, he was able to take his favourite love story and give it a new and improved touch.

Kong is a landmark film, no doubt about it. It is beautiful, heart-warming, thrilling, and powerful. Jackson has a remake on his hands that does not soil the original in anyway, instead Jackson's Kong is a different film on it's own. In a year that was full of lackluster and disappointing films...Sith anyone? Kong is able to make it fun to sit and watch a movie again.

While Kong is not as good as Jackson's Lord of the Rings, well, it is better then The Two Towers, it is one of 2004's best movies. Jackson has wanted to make this film for years, so you know that he will deliver a great film. Everything, from it's story, down to the special effects is top notch. There are only a few missteps that stop this film from being a ten.

The faults are the same that many others have, length,characters and suspension of disbelief. Kong is a long film, running in at 3 hours. The first hour is the lengthy boat trip to "Skull Island". Here would be the perfect opportunity to develop some kind of emotional connection between the two characters played by Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody. Instead we get a few awkward moments between the two and nothing more. It's kind of hard to see Jack go after this woman when there was no real connection between the two. The middle part of the movie is when we see Kong and the beautiful cinematography of "Skull Island". Here is where most of the action takes place and it is a feat to see. The final scene is the most memorable, being in New York on the Empire State building is exciting, and horrific at the same time. You know the outcome of the film, everyone does, but you can't help but root for Kong to kick *expletive deleted* and live at the end. Jackson does change a few key things from the original, but doesn't change the story drastically. Just enough to be able to call it his own, and this KONG is indeed Jackson's baby. Lord of the Rings, is definitely the fans.

Jack Black is surprisingly not as bad as one would think he would be in this role. There are hundreds of other actors out there that would have been better, but Black manages to deliver his lines without some kind of yell or laugh. Watts screams left right and centre and his cgi for a good chunk of the film as well. How she manages to live after being in the grip of Kong during any one of the fights is beyond me. She would be as flat as a pancake. Brody isn't too memorable here, he delivers his lines and walks the line, nothing too special that adds to the film. KONG is without a doubt the star of the film. He is gorgeous, heroic, funny, kick a$$ and smelly all at the same time. It's amazing to see the detail of this creature, well deserved of it's Oscar. On "Skull Island" Jackson and his wizards behind the computer are able to create the craziest creatures out of the darkest places in their minds. Creatures the range from dinosaurs to giant man eating slugs.

Two scenes that made me roll my eyes, I would imagine made everyone else roll their eyes as well. Kong on the ice, not dramatic, but not laughable either. It simply doesn't work to well. Not for the emotion, but for the reality factor, the ice most definitely would break. The second, would be when the kid, who as noted by the one shipmate, has never held a gun before, no training. Yet he is able to shoot the bugs off Jack and not harm him at all? With his eyes closed no less.

I did not cry at the end of the film, but it was moving. Seeing the live of KONG leave his eyes did have move me. It was an adventure and now it has come to an end. The relationship between Anne and KONG can be looked at in two different ways, depending on the viewer. If you honestly believe that a woman can love a giant ape, then you see it in this film...or it can be the kind of relationship that a kid has with his dog. He's protected you from enemies, you've slept together, entertained each other and laughed with each other...but then you have to put the boy down. Seeing the planes fly across the scene was like seeing death knocking on your door. Jackson strikes gold with KONG, being able to move people with the relationship of a woman and a giant ape. Too bad for KONG, he didn't know that women will be the death of ya.

8.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Sin City (Robert Rodriguez)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/sin_city/_group_photos/benicio_del_toro12.jpg


"Sin City Joins Die Hard and Fight Club As One Of The Ultimate Guy Flicks"


Sin City tells three different stories, one which involves a dead hooker and a big thug. The other is filled with hookers left right and centre, a bad cop and one super cool dude. The Last story centres around a yellow bastard and a young hot stripper. These stories all take place in Basin City from the creative mind that is Frank Miller.

Sin City had a trailer that I could watch over and over and never get bored of it. The film is the exact same way, only it's 10 times more fun. Sin City is based on the graphics novels by Frank Miller of the same name. Other then the fact that one is a book and the other is film, with some more bits of colour here and there, they are basically the exact same thing. Sin City joins Die Hard and Fight Club as one of the ultimate guy flicks and manages to become the best film of 2005.

Robert Rodriguez makes great films, see From Dusk Till Dawn and Desperado, but every now and again he misses a step, Spy Kids 3-D and The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava Girl. Here he makes his best film yet, mixing in great visuals, incredible music, the perfect cast and one hell of a good time. Everything fits perfectly for Sin City and it never misses a beat. With Rodriguez behind the camera and Miller by his side for more creative input, Sin City not only becomes the best film of 2005, but one that will go down in history.

Each story is unique for it's own merits and makes you want to re watch it over and over again. "The Hard Good-Bye" and "The Big Fat Kill" stand out over "The Yellow Bastard" simply because they contain more action and move along quicker. That is why I can't give Sin City a perfect ten, The final act, which should go out with a bang, goes out on a depressing soft whimper. It does shock the viewer if they are not familiar with the work it is based on.

What makes Sin City stand out from the rest of the films that came out in 2005? Well, aside from it's amazing visuals, it has the perfect cast. Mickey Rourke is back and is back big, with a bang, however you want to put it. Rourke got seriously overlooked by every award show, he became what he was suppose to become, right down to his chin. Del Toro shines in his role as Jackie Boy. Even the smallest bit of make-up that will make the role more believable helps and Del Toro knew this and wanted to make it as perfect as possible, he pulls it off. Clive Owen is super cool, as he is in almost everything he does. He just emulates it, although it does help that DWIGHT is super cool as well. They blend well together. It took me awhile to get passed Bruce Willis because everything I see him in, I don't see the character, I see Bruce Willis. He manages to pull it off, although it may take time to get use to him. The supporting cast help flesh out the film even more. Seeing a familiar face here and there is a treat for the audience.

The films character were great, from the big brooding Marv, to the small agile and creepy Kevin. These comic book characters are brought to life by these actors and only in a world as imaginative as Sin City could these character exist and here they kick ass to the next level. Rodriguez creates his own environment and world for that matter. Much like Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings, and Lucas did with Star Wars. Rodriguez brings paper to screen and has made a world in which we will definitely see more stories evolve from.

The music is beautiful. Rodriguez has an ear for music and uses it to it's full potential here. From the theme music that everyone loves to hear and gets excited about when they hear it, to the opening score. It fits the genre well. The visuals were interesting to see. The entire film was shot on digital, so the crisp look of the black and white is even more crisp then you would think. With dabs of colour here and there, Sin City catches the eye and makes the viewer glued to the screen.

City is not for the faint of heart and is not exactly the first choice for date movie. The film contains some pretty graphic scenes, like decapitations, castrations, electrocution, explosions, stabbings, gun shots wounds, axe wounds, dog eating man wounds,and everything else. The bullet, the babes and the blood comes everywhere in here and if you enjoy this thing, as I do, then this is a film that you will definitely want to check out. Sin City has balls and it's not afraid of what it wants to show it's viewer.

9.5/10

[Twain]

The Last story centres around a yellow bastard and a young hot stripper.

Really enjoyed your review and it was nice to revisit Sin City again.

But I have one comment :D ...about the young hot stripper. Sin City pulls no punches and cuts no corners. The one "copout" is Jessica Alba and her refusal to do nudity. What the hell is she doing in Sin City? A stripper who doesn't strip. She's perfectly willing to tease with her cuter than cute face and her gyrating body but no stripping for Jessica.

Stick to PG13 Jessica and leave the R rated movies to the grownups.

I must have had too much sugar in my cereal this morning.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I was disappointed with the lack of nudity from her as well.

[Darth Stujitzu]

You pair of pervs!!!
( ok, so I was dissapointed too, more of a Rosaria Dawson fan though!!!! ) :randy:

[Twain]

( ok, so I was dissapointed too, more of a Rosaria Dawson fan though!!!! ) :randy:

That may be the best reason to see Alexander.

[Darth Stujitzu]

That may be the best reason to see Alexander.


Surely you mean the only reason!!!! :yup: :laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

2001 Maniacs (Tim Sullivan)

http://www.donostiakultura.com/terror/2005/fotos/2001maniacs.jpg


"Englund's Over The Top Performance Is Worth The Rental"

Three college students decide to travel to Florida for some fun at Spring Break. After seeing a detour sign, they take the dirt road in hoping to get to their destination a little quicker. Soon they discover a little town called Pleasant Valley. Five more people show up right after them and decide to stay the night for some celebration.

2001 Maniacs sounds promising for the old school B-horror movie fans. A bunch of young college kids, go to this town and the residents decide to kill them and eat them. Crazy isn't it? Well, what should have been and what could have been is missing in 2001 maniacs. Call it a sequel or a remake of the 1964 film Two Thousand Maniacs, 2001 maniacs suffers from trying to be over the top but failing to do so. The deaths are good to watch and with a little bit more blood, then the fun time that is suppose to be had by this film could have been achieved. You're suppose to laugh with this movie and in some cases you do, but in others you are wondering why am I watching this?

What could have, what should have, is exactly what 2001 maniacs is. With a premise such as this film has, you would expect over the top gory funny and unique deaths. You do get these qualities in the deaths, but they are not anything that one would expect. When you are about to see a women lose all their limbs from horses running in opposite directions, you get excited a little bit, if you're into that sort of thing, but in Maniacs it losses it touch.

The goal of this film is to be a throw back to the old cheesy bad horror movies, and it achieves this goal. The dialogue is cheesy, the deaths are gory (although you'd expect more), there's nudity from young hot chicks, and of course the villains are crazy as hell, so crazy that you may even root for them in their evil goals. Some things you may question in the film, such as why would such a young and hot woman, known as Kat, be attracted to a southern hillbilly with awkward teeth, or even why the one character arms wrestles another to see who will give or receive in some homosexual sex. This film definitely pokes fun at the south, having some characters chase after animals with that twinkle of love in their eye.

Maniacs has a good build up but the delivery is kind of weak. The ending horrible and tries to take the film in a whole other direction. If there were a different ending then this film would have been graded a bit higher. I can see a future for Tim Sullivan in the horror genre, if he had some better material.

So how can I give this flick a recommendation, well it lies in the over the top performance from Robert Englund, who is the highlight of Maniacs. His role is so juicy and fun to watch that every time he isn't on screen you feel bored by the flick. I recommend this flick for fans of Englund and fans of the genre. If you're into some cheesy dialogue and violence just for the sake of violence, then 2001 Maniacs is right up your alley.

6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Chronicles of Narnia:The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (Andrew Adamson


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/the_chronicles_of_narnia__the_lion_the_witch_and_the_wardrobe/fx_gryphon.jpg


"With Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, Narnia Is Adventure-Lite"


Four children walk through a wardrobe and discover a land of mystery and enchantment. After the youngest learns that her friend from the land of Narnia has been kidnapped, she pleads for her brothers and sister to help rescue him. Once meeting the creatures that live in Narnia the siblings soon discover that they are some kind of prophecy written heroes. The Kings and Queens of Narnia that are said to rid the Witch of her evil reign with the help of Aslan, the lion.

Narnia seemed like the perfect film of the year that had adventure, excitement, and fantasy all rolled into one entertaining film. Based on the books, which are loved by millions, Narnia had a huge step to overcome in pleasing it's devoted fans. It's too bad that in a world with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, Narnia is adventure-lite. It's scope seems bigger then what it's reality is. Even when judging it against another book turned film, Series of Unfortunate Events, Narnia seems to be lagging behind in last place.

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. Other then the main characters, who we are stuck with no matter what. The supporting cast, the witch, the Faun and the deep and perfect voice of Aslan, Liam Neeson make up, a little bit, for what the children actors lack.

Nothing really exciting happen in the film. When you have a fantasy film such as this, that promises an adventure, you would expect something a little bit more then what the result is. It takes thirty some odd minutes for all the children to finally get into Narnia, after that they encounter a beaver and learn what the place is and who they supposedly are. After a quick run in with some wolves, and the younger brother in the hands of the witch, nothing else happens, save for the final battle. The kids are safe in their "terrirtory" where the heroes of the film get ready for the final battle. Then the final battle occurs, which is something right out of a card game Magic: The Gathering.

There's not too much of an emotional attachment to any of the characters, so when one is near death, we can't seem to care. This installment is a weak first entry to something that could be a successful series. Narnia does contain beautiful images, ranging from snowy mountain tops, to green valleys. It's a beautiful film, with great special effects, costume designs and set pieces. They have created a wonderful world where these creatures live in. Go into Narnia expecting a wild adventurous time, then you will be disappointed. Hoping to expect to see a massive battle scene, skip it, it can't hold a candle to anything that Jackson served us. See this, for beautiful images or if you're a fan of the material, whether you will be satisfied or not is up for debate, as I've never read the books.

7/10

[Twain]

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.


You're right about the children. There are some great child actors, and maybe these are good too, but I never felt much of a connection with them. If this one element of the film had been better (along the lines of the children in ET), it would have been a much better experience.

Also, as I mentioned in my review of Narnia, the brave battle scene is given entirely to the boys. I wanted to see the older girl do some damage with that bow she hauled around for an hour, but not here. I think that showed the age of the material. In today's world, the girl would have been at the center of the battle.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I agree, I was waiting for some arrow deaths on her end, and only ended up with one.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Thank You For Smoking (Jason Reitman)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_searchlight/thank_you_for_smoking/aaron_eckhart/smoking1.jpg

"Nick Naylor Make Me Want To Smoke"


Nick Naylor, a lobbyist on behalf of Tobacco industries, is a smart, good-looking, fast talking S.O.B. Naylor travels to different locations for these Tobacco industries as their spokesman, on this trip he takes his son and tries to be a role model while keeping his image good in the public eye.

Is there any kind of plot behind Thank you For Smoking, on the surface not really. Smoking is a film that is more character driven. It's in the comedic style of a David O. Russell film or maybe even a Wes Anderson film. Smoking is a quirky, in your face, dark, odd comedy that actually works. Too often we see films that are too dark and not comedic enough with it's material, Duplex and Ice Harvest to name some. Here, Reitman takes a controversial topic and puts a comedic spin on it. The film doesn't take one side or the other, but in the end tells you to make your mind up for yourself.

It may take a pretty sick and twisted individual to laugh at some scenes, such as "Cancer Boy" or the topics that the "M.O.D" have at their dinner table. Ladies and Gentlmen, I am a sick and twisted individual and I enjoyed this film. It made light of a heavy topic and actually make you like the lead character who is the one killing people...more or less. How can we like such a character? Well, it does help when the character is an intelligent, smooth talking, good looking guy, who gets to bang Katie Holmes. The other reason is that the character is played extremely well by Aaron Eckhart. Hands down his best role to date and hopefully one where he will be able to get more recognition. Bottom Linbe, Nick Naylor make me want to smoke, because he is so convincing at what he does, as it's the only thing he's good at.

Smoking speaks the truth, in a sick and twisted funny way. The main character gets kidnapped and gets a couple dozen smoking patches slapped onto his body, then left to rot in the Lincoln memorial lap. We then find out that it was smoking that saved his life, Naylor's response? "Can I quote you on that?" This is what the whole movie is like, smart a witty dialogue with cool and funny characters. Some of the best scenes are between Eckhart and Lowe, who play very well off each other in a scene where they try to promote smoking in the films. The need a role model to show that smoking is cool, someone like Indiana Jones meets Jerry Maguire, on two packs a day.

The only downfall of the film is Naylor's son, who is a kid that you may end up hating, just because of the kid being the way he is. It's the same kid from Birth and Godsend. There is just something about his acting that annoys me, it could be his emotionless face...but then again, I'm not a big fan of many child actors. The supporting cast includes Maria Bello, J.K. Simmons, William H. Macy, Robert Duvall, Rob Lowe, Sam Elliot and Katie Holmes. All Holmes does in the movie is have sex with Naylor, then write an article...not much more, so if you're a lover or hater of the one half of TOMKAT, she has no impact on the film, her screen time maxes out at about ten minutes.

Thank You For Smoking is a film that is definitely not for everyone, it's not laugh out loud funny, it's comedic style is a little bit more intelligent. Using it's comedy in it's dialogue and it's subject matter. The film doesn't say Smoking is good for you, or that it's bad, it expects you to know the answer already. Thank You For Smoking is an early contender for a top ten list and is an underdog in every sense of the word. It won't get much recognition from the public, or probably even the critics, but as it stands this film is...smokin'.

8/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Aristocrats (Paul Provenza)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/thinkfilm/the_aristocrats/gilbert_gottfried/aristocrats1.jpg


"The Joke Is Only Funny Depending On The Comic"


This is a documentary that showcases various comedians telling the most disgusting joke that they can think of. The joke has a beginning and and punchline, but the middle section is up in the air for as much creativity as the comic can muster. A family walks into a talent agent's office....

That's how the joke starts, and when you hear it at the end, you have two reactions. Laugh uncontrollably, or sit there with a blank stare. The joke itself is not funny, but depending on the comic telling it, you can be rolling on the floor with laughter. This film is not for the weak stomach, it has the most foul things that people can imagine, blood, sex, incest, death, various body parts, various juices, various weapons, urine, vomit, and a dog. If you can sit through some sick and twisted humour, The Aristrocrats is a film for you.

The funniest scene in the entire movie belongs to those rude and crude animated characters on South Park, who manage to poke fun at the 9/11 victims. That joke is the lowest, but funniest part in the film. Kudos to Stone and Parker for getting the biggest laugh. Other highlights include, Bob Saget, who with his wholesome image manages to spew some disgusting bits of filth. Gilbert Gottfried tells the joke in public on stage, and is considered to have the biggest set of balls for doing so. Others that I fond enjoyable were Drew Carrey & Robbin Williams, who told the joke a little different from the others, as well as George Carlin, with his gargling bit.

Unfortunately with these comedians who tell is so well, there are others, who stumble, and are just not funny. Case in point, Whoopie Goldberg, she tries to act like she doesn't want to tell the joke, then tries to shock us with some kind of penis joke and finally fails to get any laughs. For every good joke told, there is a bad one, which really makes you sit there and think to yourself, why put these people in if they're not funny?

The joke itself, although is different every time, does get tiresome. You do hear the same things over and over, mom and son, dad and daughter, blood here, semen there, the only difference is that the comedian puts it in a different situation, or order. It was neat to see that the joke has been around for years and that every single comedian knows it and has been saying it to each other as an inside joke type thing. Know that the joke itself has hit the general public, I have the feeling that it will lose all it's vulgarity.

The bottom line is, this film will make you laugh, sit there bored and maybe even have you cringe your face in disgust. There are hundreds of comedians in the film, so that is something else that you may be able to enjoy. As well as the ending, which tells you to go out and keep the joke alive...so, do you have the next Aristocrats joke?

6/10

[nebbit]

The Aristocrats (Paul Provenza)


The bottom line is, this film will make you laugh,
6/10

Thats what i am looking for, a good http://bestsmileys.com/lol/9.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

Silent Hill (Christophe Gans)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/tristar_pictures/silent_hill/silenthill_sign.jpg



"I Had A Skin Ripping, Blood Dripping, Body Tearing Good Time"

Rose takes her daughter to Silent Hill in hopes of finding an answer to her sleep walking nightmares. After a car accident just outside the town, Rose wakes up to see her daughter missing. Now she must roam through the ash dreaded streets of Silent Hill....

Silent Hill is based on a video game, one of which I've played, briefly. So I know what I'm in store for, but still didn't expect it. Silent Hill is one of the better horror films of the decade and without a doubt one of the better, if not the best video game adaptation...ever. That's not saying this movie is perfect, it does have it's faults, but the bottom line is that I had a skin ripping, blood dripping, body tearing good time.

Silent Hill is beautiful to look at. The cinematography is wonderful, ranging from gray ash ridden streets and buildings, to blood dripping red terrifying nightmares. The film jumps back and fourth between the two eerie scenery and manages to make you feel the eerie weirdness and confusion that our main character, Rose goes through. Rose's husband, Sean Bean, goes through the same town, but in a different state...he's world is grounded and realistic.

Is Silent Hill terrifying? Yes and no. It depends on what you've been exposed to in previous films. For me, I love the horror genre, so I've seen it all. Silent Hill wasn't anything to shake me to my bones, but it does a very good job and being creepy. One of the best parts of the movie is the siren. It blares a warning sound when the town turns into the nightmare. You hear it for the first time and you know that nothing good can come of it. You hear it a second time and you are terrified, knowing what will come, but not knowing what to really expect. The third time, you just say to yourself that the characters better get the hell out of there. There are three worlds in Silent Hill. The "real" world, in which Sean Bean is looking for his wife and daughter. The "Limbo" world, which is when the town is covered is ashes creating the foggy creepy feeling, then finally, with the siren alarm comes the nightmare world, where we meet all the insane, brutal, pyramid head nightmares.

The Pyramid Head guy, if you've played the games you know who I'm talking about, if not...he a guy with a giant pyramid on his head...you think it's funny? Wait till you meet the guy, you might sh*t your pants. He carries a big sword, and can rip the skin of a human in one second flat. The little time he is on the screen, you hide behind those fingers of yours, peeking every once in a while to see if the nightmare is over.

There is one scene that is a pure "Evil Dead" moment. In the original "Evil Dead" one of the characters gets raped by a tree, here it does that same scene, only upping the terror and cringe worthiness. Think...barbwire. Is there gore? Well, let see, there is the one scene that I just described, in which the body is then ripped in half. Pyramid Head...you remember him, well he rips the skin off a human body. A woman is beaten to near death with blunt instruments, then burned alive. The burning of the woman is kind of pointless. She is repeatedly beaten, to the point where we think she is dead. But, oh no, she is still alive. Can she be saved in time? We think so, otherwise why is she still alive, but then she is burned alive. Reason, for shock value. Pointless.

What hurts this film is the useless character of the father, it's need to explain everything and the corny dialogue. While we're in Silent Hill, we should always be in Silent Hill. You take away from the suspense when we have to follow the father and his searching for the two. It takes away from the mystery of what's going on. The audience should be lost with it's main character, there should be no connection to the outside world when you're in Silent Hill. That would ultimately make it more terrifying. Which leads me into it's second fault, which seems to be a trend in many movies. The need to explain why. Why do we always have to have an explanation of why bad things have happened. Why can't it all be a mystery, they're there for our imagination to come up with a reason, not because of what you're telling us. Granted the way they told us was different and nice to see, it's still hurting the film in the end.

The dialogue is laughable, is it because it's based on a video game? No, video games can have good dialogue, this film has teen slasher dialogue written all over it. Scream names here in hope to find an individual. Lines like, "Hey, look at this" or "No, you're the sinner". Stuff that should be in a cheesy B-horror movie film that came from the 80's. In this movie it is just out of place. Everything is great in the film, except for the dialogue.

The ending does many things, leave you to come up with an explanation and lean into a possible sequel. What I took from the ending? Rose is still in the "Limbo" world. Her daughter has been for a lack of a better word, possessed by the demon. Which is why she has a different look at the end, the look that a kid such a Damien would give us. The way it's presented to us can confuse the audience, but I liked it. Silent Hill, for the hardcore fans, I think will please. For horror fans, will please. Silent Hill is a genuine terrifying experience.

7.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review :yup:

[Darth Stujitzu]

I enjoyed parts of Silent Hill, I've only played the game a few times, so most of the story was new to me.
I thought the first half of the film was the better, Rose's first entry into Silent Hill was very spooky and built tension and fear in equal amounts.
Personally I thought the film was a tad long, the dialogue was awful, Sean Bean was a waste of space, but my main gripe was the limited screentime of Pyramid head, I felt almost as cheated as the brief cameo of Darth Maul in the craptacular Phantom Menace, why don't they give more time to characters that are truely frightening and iconic?
Not a bad film, I wonder if it will be as good after subsequent viewings, Brotherhood of the Wolf was great the first time I saw it, but has never again given me that feeling on subsequent viewings, defenitely a director to look out for though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Twelve Monkeys (Terry Gilliam)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/12_monkeys/bruce_willis/monkeys.jpg


"One Of The Best Time Travel Movies To Grace The Screen"


James Cole is sent back in time to stop a virus that destroys humanity. He must look for clues to lead him to the group known as the 12 monkeys, but is sent too far back in time and ends up as an insane patient in a hospital. Know he must escape the hospital and continue his mission.

With a brilliant script, a unique vision and a superb cast, 12 monkeys makes it mark in cinema history as one of the best time travel movies to grace the screen. 12 Monkeys is a film that will take multiple viewings to comprehend, and even then there is still new aspects of the film that appear to you with every viewing. Everything in this film clicks together so well, making it one of the best films of the 90's.

Terry Gilliam is a director that looks at the world at an angle, he brings this angle to his films. One only has to view his previous films, such as Brazil to see how far off the edge this guy is. With 12 Monkeys he brings us a film that is off the chart is bizarre weirdness, but is able to make the film make sense in the end. Which is hard for any time travel flick. Unlike other films that deal with time travel, 12 monkeys makes the entire act of time travel seem believable. Gilliam has an impressive track record and 12 monkeys is near the top of it.

Brad Pitt stands out in this film as the totally insane patient that befriends Willis. What did Gilliam do to make Pitt so nuts in this film? Simply take away his cigarettes. Maybe Pitt should stop smoking all together and his other films will be as good as this one. Pitt gives this dark and morose film a funny bone. Willis, who normally is mediocre in his films shines here. Along with Stowe, this cast brings a whole new level to the film.

The film itself is off the wall and ahead of it's time. It's dark and brilliant. The only fault would be that in some scenes it drags a bit. 12 Monkeys is a film that will still be talked about in years to come. It is definitely one of the best films for everyone involved. It's madness starts from the first shot right up until the last second, it never lets it's out of place style end. Which is what makes this film so good.

8.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Army of Darkness (Sam Raimi)

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/armydark/armydark4.jpg


"Now Listen Up,You Primitive Screwheads...You Must Watch This Movie!!!"


In the third installment of the Evil Dead Trilogy, our hero Ash is sent back in time to 1300 A.D. where he is enslaved and sent to the pit. After defeating the evil deadite that lingers in the depths of the pit, he is hailed as the chosen one. Ash, wants nothing to do with them and only wants to get back home, but the only way to do his is to retrieve the book of the dead. Unfortunately for Ash, he awakens the dead while taking the book, and now must battle the army of Darkness before he goes back to his own time.

Back in the year 1981, Sam Raimi and a group of friends created one of the most terrifying horror movies to date, The Evil Dead. Again in 1987 Raimi and Co. managed to create yet another genuine horror experience with Evil Dead II. Now with the third installment in this series, Raimi gives us a comedic cult classic film that will have you quoting every piece of dialogue in your every day life.

Army of Darkness is a perfect example of a cult classic. If you go walking down a street and ask if anyone has heard of it, they'll give you the crazy look. But search the net or go to any horror convention and you'll see that there are Evil Dead maniacs out there, and I am proud to say that I am one of them.

Most trilogies tend to suck by the third film, Blade trinity and revolutions to name a few, but here Darkness manages to make itself a stand alone film and a fine damn one at that. It still has it's nods to the original Evil Dead, but if you're looking for the ultimate horror experience, then this film is not for you. Instead Darkness is full of comedic dialogue and actions. Our hero ASH spits out classic one-liners that so many people try to copy today...I'm looking your way Duke Nukem.

Bruce Campbell is ASH. His character evolves throughout the trilogy and it's in this third installment that he is a badass. It's in this third installment that everyone remembers him from. It's in this third installment where he has the chainsaw, the boomstick, the one-liners, the sugar. Campbell will always be known for this one character. He's such a coward and yet we still feel the need to cheer him on. Campbell is the master of physical comedy and he uses it to his advantage here, fighting an army of mini ashs, splitting away from his evil self and getting his face sucked down an unknown demon hole from a book.

Speaking of which, that's what makes the film even more enjoyable. It's insane bizarre comedic tone. Whether you like slapstick comedy or have a dark funny bone, this film is delightful for all. I never thought I would laugh so much at someone pouring boiling hot water down their throat. Then to have the thing grow inside of you and try to detach itself from your body, only in a movie like this can you watch that and laugh with it. Granted, it would help if you've seen the first two films and in order as well. The opening does give you a recap of what's happened, but you feel more for the film and ASH if you've been through the horrors that he has.

Much like Peter Jackson got his start in the horror movie genre, so did Sam Raimi. You know, the guy that went on to direct such big hits as Spiderman and Spiderman 2. Army of Darkness has the little Sam Raimi touch with it. Once you see it you can tell that it's Raimi behind the lens. Raimi has his brothers scattered throughout the film, playing many different characters at that. As well as Three Stoogies get ups and the POV of certain objects, such as arrows being shot or forks being thrown.

The effects are great and still low key. You can tell which deadites are guys in suits and the black fabric behind the eyes of other skeletons, but that's what gives this film it's cheesy B movie goodness. Seeing ASH fight against all the evil mini ashs is a feat for the eyes as well, even if it does look so fake.

This is a great way to end the trilogy. I hope they do not make a fourth installment, as this is one of the greatest trilogies of all time, I'd even put it in the same sentence with Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, watch the Helm's Deep scene and tell me Jackson did not use army of Darkness as inspiration. I do not own all the DVD versions out there, which are a handful, but I do have the boomstick edition, so I'm able to enjoy the theatrical cut and the director's cut. Army of Darkness is a film that I can watch over and over and never get tired of, which is what a great fun movie should be.

10/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Mission Impossible III (J.J. Abrams)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/mission__impossible_iii/tom_cruise/missioniii6.jpg


"Abrams Goes Heavy On The Action And Lite On The Spy"


Ethan Hunt has finally settled down with his soon to be married girlfriend. When he is told that his former trainee is in trouble he decides to go on a rescue mission to help save her. Unfortunately she dies during the rescue and Hunt is on the "hunt" for the man responsible for her death, which leads him into a tangled web of deceit and a dangerous weapon known as the RABBITS FOOT.

J.J. Abrams is the creative mind behind such hits as Alias and Lost. Both of which have a massive cult following. Now Abrams takes his stab at the big screen with the third installment in the spy franchise Mission:Impossible. Abrams take on the franchise is leaps and bounds over what Woo offered, but falls short of De Palma's original. Abrams goes heavy on the action and lite on the spy.

Some may think that Woo destroyed the series, I don't think this is true, but nevertheless, Abrams is trying to revive it by kicking it into overdrive. While watching MI:III, I kept asking myself, is this suppose to be a spy flick? Every single movie in this series differs from the other, even if Abrams does take notes from both. Mission Impossible is a good way to start the summer blockbuster movies, but one would of expecting a little bit more from it's hype.

First of all, it does have a lot of action. This is a perfect example for edge of your seat entertainment. The action never lets up, and it's actually enjoyable to watch. The bridge scene was impressive, but you can tell right away that the entire scene plays like an episode out of Alias. For some reason Abrams always must have the transportation vehicle get attacked for the person inside of it. Can we get another way of getting this person Abrams?

Cruise manages to keep his cool in this movie, I was surprised that he didn't start killing people in the name of Scientology. With the help of the supporting actors, the cast makes MI:III somewhat believable, but what's with the lack of Hoffman? Abrams, you have a good actor in your back pocket, he gives you a great performance, as usual in Hoffman's case, but you use him for 15 to 20 minutes. The film also under uses Fishburn and Pegg, who is the comedic relief.

What's the Rabbits foot? We're never told, or seem to care either. PLot twists, yes, but why? The film would have made more sense if it just stuck with it's basic course, does every film need to throw in a twist to shock the viewer? A bomb inserted in the head? Even if it was written before Alias, we see used in Alias before, so we basically know what's going to happen.

Abrams does showcase some talent, and he can only improve. With more concentration on his characters then he can surly become one of the heavy hitters in Hollywood. Abrams has a keen eye for action and pulls out all the stops here. MI:III is a good start for action movies, it sets the bar for others to follow. If you're able to leave your brain at the door and sit through some bad dialogue, such as Humpty Dumpty Sat On A Wall...then enjoy a great action movie.

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/the_da_vinci_code/_group_photos/audrey_tautou4.jpg


"It's One Of Those Read The Book & Skip The Movie"

The Da Vinci Code, based on the massively popular book by the same name, sees Robert Langdon sent to a murder scene to investigate certain symbols left by the victim. What Langdon figures out though, could destroy Christianity and his life.

The Da Vinci Code is a cultural phenomenon, which almost everyone has read. So it's no surprise that they want to get a movie out there for the people who are too lazy to read the books, but here it's an obvious case of cashing in on the money that the book has earned. Much like Passion Of The Christ, you can tell that the filmmakers hope that it's controversy is the key to it's success. It's a shame to say that it's one of those read the book and skip the movie.

I've read the book, been to it's locations and believe in Jesus Christ, so I really enjoyed the book. With Ron Howard giving us the motion picture, my hopes that the film making a good translation to screen were still up in the air. After finally seeing the film, I've come to realize that the book is indeed better then the movie. The main reason behind this would be because the film itself felt rushed. It felt like it was still trying to cash in on the book's success, it just so happens that it leaves the viewer wondering what all the fuss is about. If they haven't read the book that is.

Da Vinci is the weakest film out of the Hanks and Howard collaboration. Hanks still doesn't seem to fit the title character of Langdon. No, it's not the hair, it's just that when I'm watching the film I see TOM HANKS, not Robert Langdon. Hanks aside, everyone else seems to fit their roles perfectly. I enjoyed Reno as the french police officer Fache and adored Tautou as Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen does a good job as well, although I thought he was more comical then his character should be. Molina is barely used in the film, but out of everyone, it's Paul Bettany who shines here. Bettany showed his acting chops in Gangster No. 1, here he steals the screen. Unlike Hanks, Bettany becomes his character sends chills down some spines.

The film is true to the book, but I could of sworn I remember a lot more stuff happening in the book then what was showed in the film. Granted, you can't transfer everything from page to screen, but it seems like they didn't really care for the material. The most important and entertaining part of the book seems to fly by here. I was also very turned off by the scenes that showed Langdon looking at certain things that weren't there. Hologram like images that play out in his mind and to the viewer, but are invisible to everyone else.

The score was impressive, it's one of the few highlights in the film. The book itself was a page turner and never seemed to slow down, the film doesn't slow down either, but with a 2 1/2 hour running time it does hit you in your seats. National Treasure I said felt like a Da Vinci Code ripoff, but Treasure was the better film of the two. It was more adventurous then Code, which to me, even with it's beautiful locations, seemed confined.

Howard is a good director, and if he actually took the time to make a good film here he could have had a success, unfortunately his rushed attempt to get the film in theatres shows. As does the acting, which is quite embarrassing at some points. The controversy surrounding the film should die down when people realize that the film isn't that great, as should it's box office intake. Code is an okay film, that if the people behind it too kmore time, could have been great and a huge success. If they do decide to make Angels and Demons, I'll go to see it, as it was the better book and should make the better movie.

6/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for your reviews :D I have seen MI:111 and felt the same about the story, haven't seen D V Code yet. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Fun With Dick & Jane (Dean Parisot)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/fun_with_dick_and_jane/_group_photos/jim_carrey7.jpg

"The Movie Just Doesn't Click With The Funny Bone"


Shortly after getting promoted, Dick loses his job. It's too bad that he told his wife, Jane, to quit her job as well. Now the money is gone and the house if up in foreclosure. Dick, turns to a life of crime to pay the bills, with his wife Jane by his side.

I've been a fan of Jim Carrey since I was a kid, he was my idol. I would imitate everything he did. From his catch phrases such as "Spank Me" to dressing up as the Mask for Halloween. Jim Carrey is just a great comedic actor and he is always the first person to go to when you want a wacky off the wall character. In Dick & Jane, Carrey is limited by his usual crazy self, as he must play a family man. Carrey does get a couple of laughs, but the movie as a whole just doesn't click with the funny bone.

Carrey and Leoni work well as a comedic duo. They play off each other as husband and wife quite good. I could see another film for the two in the future. One of the comedic highlights featuring the two is when Dick is trying to rob a bunch of different stores throughout the city, but fails at each attempt. Jane thinks that he's just joking and seems to be having a fun time with his failure. The rest of the film finds it's laughs in what Carrey brings to the table, but one man can only bring so much and here it isn't enough.

I haven't seen the original, so I can't make a comparison between the two, but it would seem that it's not only the chemistry that's needed to make the film work, but the events that happen as well. The events here make you crack a smile or two, but not a gut holding burst of laughter.

Dean Parisot film Galaxy Quest was quite funny and I enjoyed it very much so. The cast had perfect chemistry with each other in it and the story itself was interesting. Everything seemed to fall in place there and Parisot had a success on his hands. Dick & Jane is the opposite. With the except of the husband and wife chemistry, nothing else really works here. Baldwin adds nothing to film and Richard Jenkins of the Farrelly Brother's films is drunk for a good chunk of the film.

Is there a moral of the story at the end? Yes, but it's presented is clouds of grey. Dick and Jane never get caught with their illegal activities, so the message is lost by the time the credits roll by. I found myself just sitting there more often then laughing. I wanted to laugh, I wanted to enjoy myself, but ultimately couldn't bring myself to. On a bright side, with other comedy remakes, such as Bewitched and the Honeymooners, Dick & Jane is the best of the bunch.

5.5/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Shooting Gallery (Keoni Waxman)

http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/A_D222Gallery/spring05/images/Billiards-Robert-MacroPhotography.jpg



"Poolhall Junkies, this is not"


A pool hustler becomes a member of a pack of hustlers. He rises to the top, but soon finds himself the monkey in the middle of a match between his boss and a crooked cop.

Freddie Prinze Jr. seems to have a string of bad films lately, with such titles like Scooby Doo, Summer Catch and Scooby Doo 2. But one only has to look at his film credits to see that he hasn't been in a really good movie at all. His career ranges from teen slasher flicks to a poor excuse for a video game adaption. It seems with Shooting Gallery Freddie is trying to show that he's serious now, and that he's left his Scooby Doo image behind. Well, Freddie, I got a message for ya, keep dreaming'

When I first came across Shooting Gallery, Poolhall Junkies rip-off is what came to my mind, but for the sake of an argument, I gave it a chance. After watching it, I still came to the conclusion that it's a poolhall junkies ripoff and a poorly executed one too. The main character here tries to act as if he's cool and slick, but with Freddi Prinze Jr. as your main catch, he's comes off and nothing more then a pretty face who thinks he can shoot some pool. In the final stages of the film, I wanted to cut my ears off I couldn't stand his "broken nose" accent. Ving Rhames makes an appearance. All he does is walk around and chew on alligator feet. He actually does nothing in the film, until the climax when he shoots some pool and a gun.

In the film "Rounders" Norton has an ace tattooed on his arm, he says that he has an ace up his sleeve, it worked. In "Shooting Gallery" they get 8 balls tattooed on their arm, with Rhames on his bald head. It shows that their part of a gang...but it doesn't work. Rhames outfit is comical, you should see it to believe it. The plot is poorly written, and one of those, he was hustling everyone from the start type gigs, completely clichéd.

The pool shooting is quite good, not better then what is showcased in "Poolhall Junkies" but good nonetheless. Freddie actually shoots some pool here, nice to see that, but it's obvious that the trick shots are done by someone else. I liked the whole switching of the shooting sides that Freddie does near the end though, I thought that was a neat addition. "Poolhall Junkies" has Walken and "Shooting Gallery" has Macfadyen. Macfadyen is definitely the highlight here as the drunk, druggie, poolhall hustler. He brings some enthusiasm to an otherwise dead cast. It was nice to see some life pumped into this dead film, but it doesn't last long.

The poolhall lingo consists of what the director has heard and made up. Which is obvious when you listen to other lines such as "If I'm Lyin...I'm Dyin." Some characters names, if you'd like to hear are Paulie the Pawn and Cue Ball Carl. What's with the random words appearing on the screen? Poolhall lingo? Purpose to the script? It was distracting and adds nothing to the experience except confusion and dread.

Skip "Shooting Gallery" unless you want a headache from poor acting and a clichéd plot. "Poolhall Junkies" this is not. Unless you're a massive fan of pool, check out something else.

4/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews, I may give them both a miss :yup: not a big fan of Carey :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Rushmore (Wes Anderson)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/touchstone_pictures/rushmore/jason_schwartzman/map.jpg


"Murray Shines In This Overrated Piece Of Cinema"

Max Fischer attends Rushmore, a private school. His grades aren't the best, but he's the king of extracurricular activities. He's put on academic probation and falls in love with a teacher, Miss Cross. Although, he's not the only with an eye for Miss Cross. Herman Blume, a wealthy industrialist also finds his heart to be stolen from the teacher. Now Max finds himself in a love triangle he can't seem to get out of.

Wes Anderson's films are usually quirky, funny and brilliantly written. Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums manage to fall under all three categories. Life Aquatic also managed to have these elements, but not to the same level as the previous two. Rushmore, unfortunately only offers us one good thing out of the three, it's script.

Rushmore is a great film, on paper. It gives you the sense of a smart film, it's just too bad that the brains behind it is all bark and no bite. Anderson and Wilson are great writers, when they are together they can pull some pretty neat rabbits out of hats. Rushmore gets a lot of praise which has me scratching my head. Do people really like slow, boring, and a main character that you simply want to beat the crap out of? Maybe everyone liked Bill Murray so much that they just had to rave about the film, because it's Murray who shines in this overrated piece of cinema.

Jason Schwartzman plays his character very well, but his character is so dull and will make your eyes roll more then once. We are suppose to like the main character, but with Rushmore, I found my self begging for something interesting to happen. I was hoping that Max would suddenly stop being an uninteresting character, and someone that I can enjoy on the screen. Alas, this never happens. Bill Murray on the other hand, single handily saves this film from disaster. He is so wonderful in this film and this role belongs near the top as one of his best. All the characters, with the exception of MAX, are interesting. If Schwartzman's character only had one tenth of the charm that Murray pulls off, maybe I could have liked the film a bit more.

The film soundtrack is quite good. It helps bring it's depressing mood up a little bit. Anderson always seems to have good music littered throughout his films and Rushmore is a good example. From Cat Stevens to The Rolling Stones, you'll probably end up liking the soundtrack more then the film.

Ultimately I can't give this film a recommendation, but I can give it a 7. It may be a contradiction, but the film is well made. Everything flows well with it, the characters, the music, the directing and most of all it's script. But when you have such a talented cast and director, you'd expect to enjoy the film a lot more. Skip Rushmore and check out The Royal Tenenbaums, because it's simply immensely superior to this.

7/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, I really liked it :yup:

[Iroquois]

Nice work. I agree about Max in Rushmore. Annoying bespectacled farka who nobody likes.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Unleashed (Louis Leterrier)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/rogue_pictures/unleashed/jet_li/unleashed6.jpg


"Not The Typical Jet Li Fare"

Danny loses his mother at a young age, and his then raised as a dog to serve only his master. His master is a ruthless, bloodhound who uses Danny to do his dirty work. When Danny escapes his master, he's taken in by a blind piano player. After trying to start a new life, his old master finds him and tries to bring him back to serve him. Now Dany must fight his way out of his old life so he can be able to live a normal life...

If you look at Jet Li's American film career you'll get such stinkers as The One, Cradle to the Grave, and Romeo Must Die. So once I heard another Jet Li film was near, I wondered if it was going to star another rap artist. Instead, the film that is Danny The Dog, or Unleashed, for it's American audience, is a film about family and wanting to belong. I was pleasantly surprised by this film and it's martial arts was pleasing to the eye. Dany the Dog is not the typical Jet Li fare. It does have it's fair share of fight sequences, but you'll be getting a story with that as well.

What makes the film different from Li's others? Well, there are numerous things, for instance, the supporting cast. With such good actors such as Bob Hoskins and Morgan Freeman, it was nice to see some real actors being apart of Jet Li's films. Hoskins is deliciously evil as Danny's master and Freeman is charming as the blind piano player.

Now, there isn't so much as a great story, but there is a story. A kid loses his mother, become a fighting slave to the man who killed his mother, then he gets his revenge. It's written by Luc Besson, who adds some flavour to the script. Whereas any other Jet Li film would have DMX bringing down the house.

The martial art sequences really showcase Li's talent. Even though the film does do it's one bad guy at a time formula, Li and the editing make it look smoother. Louis Leterrier does a good job a making the sequences suspenseful, even if we know who's going to come out on top. The violent factor is high here, as in one scene where there are fighter in a squared arena, with walls covered in barbed wire and random weapons thrown in. Quite savage, yet entertaining at the same time. Check it out, if you're ready for some tight fight sequences and a good performance from Hoskins.

7/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Basket Case (Frank Henenlotter)

http://especial.c7nema.ws/gore/galeria/Monstros/basket%20case/03.jpg

"Cult Classic Or Piece Of Trash?"

A young man travels to New York City with his deformed Siamese brother in a basket. Their plan is to seek revenge on the doctors that separated them. But things don't go according to plan.

This is an odd film, the premise alone will have one scratching their heads. In order to like this film, you'll need to like trash/crap/horrible/lower then B horror movies. This is all that plus more. One only has to look at the directors other films to understand what they went for with this flick.

I can see how this film has a cult following, it has that appeal, but it just didn't work for me. It went from being a good film at being bad, to a bad film at being bad. Was the scene of the main character running around New York naked really necessary? Don't get me started on the fact that the deformed brother has sex with a dead female.

The clay-mation is funny to look at in by todays terms. Some old school lovers will get a kick out of it. The film had a budget, and you can tell. The audio is off in places and the acting is horrid. The ending was bizarre, but actually worked. Which has me scratching my head why there is not one, but two...count them two sequels. You know you're in trouble when the director says "Basketcase 3 what were we thinking?"

I can't recommend this film to anyone, even horror fans. It is geared towards a specific audience. If you can sit through trashy crap horror movies and love the idea of a deformed brother in a basket, then be my guest. OTHERWISE, avoid at all costs. I have yet to see the sequels, and most likely will not ever see them. Don't worry I'm not losing any sleep over it.

3/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

Carnivore (Joseph Kurtz &Kenneth Mader)

http://www.carnivoremovie.com/images/behind_scenes/full_size/carni_dead_guy2_full.jpg


" I Would Rather Be Beaten In The Face With A Blunt Object Repeatedly, Then Think About This Film"

A government experiment goes horribly wrong when their animal test subject escapes and goes on a killing rampage within the house it was stored in. It just so happens that a group of teenagers show up in the house with beer and sex on the mind. The beast decides to eat them one by one...until there is nothing left.

I saw this title in the bin for five dollars, normally if I were to get a crappy flick for five dollars I wouldn't care. Although, here we have Carnivore, and I think I should not only get my five dollars back, but a dollar for every god for shaken minute that I had to sit through this piece of garbage. Having the 85 dollars won't make me any happier, or even make me forget Carnivore...but it's the least the makers of this film could do.

Some titles that have made me want to put a bullet through my head include: Rollerball, Envy, Belly, Introducing Janet, Son of Mask, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 and anything from Uwe Boll. But I would gladly watch those films over this any day. I know there are those of you out there that can't believe this, won't believe this, but it's true. This film is that bad and it warrants the TURD AWARD, for WORST FILM EVER!!!!

The audio is so horribly bad, it fades in and out throughout the entire running time. I had the volume up full and still had a hard time hearing things. This accompanied by the total darkness the film is covered in makes this a treat for the eyes and the ears. I know that there are films with low budgets, but this is lower then student film quality. There are many crappy B horror films out there that I don't like all too much, Basketcase being a prime example, but I respect it on some level. I can't bring myself to like anything in this film. The one and only part in this film, other then the useless nudity that accompanies these horny filmmakers, is one death scene. It was horrible, but horrible is a step up from what this movie offers.

Should I even mention the acting? It is obvious to anyone that in a film like Carnivore you'll be served some laughable people on the screen. Alas, Carnivore manages to give us something completely horrendous then you wish to watch a film with Carrot Top and Paulie Shore as a comedic duo. That's right I went there. The script, if there was ever one, is inane. A secret government organization is in the basement of a house, and the entire government experiment consists of one or two scientists. I can't remember how many there were and I don't want to. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Carnivore, which is basically a fur ball with legs, drinks beer. At least it didn't end up having sex with anything....poor Basketcase.

Finally, Carnivore makes a film like Campfire Tales look like The Godfather. Everything you can possibly think of is wrong with this film. Did they even try? Well it doesn't appear so here and please god, if anyone has the unfortunate task of watching this film, let them die quickly.

0/10

[nebbit]

:laugh: Thanks suspect, I think I will give both of these a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Kicking & Screaming (Jesse Dylan)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/kicking___screaming/will_ferrell/kicking3.jpg



"I Was Kicking & Screaming For This Film To Be Over"

Phil was never good at sports, his dad never really gave him a chance. Now that he is older and has his own son, his dad is doing the same thing to Phil's son as he did with Phil. Now Phil is the coach of the worst team in the league and tries to have fun with the game, but loses his sense of mind when he became addicted to coffee and winning.

Will Ferrell should stay away from kid friendly comedies (Bewitched, Elf). It just doesn't suit his comedic talent at all. 2005 was a horrible year for Ferrel, banking in crap like Bewitched and Screaming, as well as the only funny once cameo in Wedding Crashers. Kicking & Screaming tries to be something it's not, which is THE BIG GREEN. I was kicking and screaming for this film to be over.

The kids are nowhere as funny, cute, or good at anyone from the Big Green. I mean, who would you rather have, two Italian kids, or the red head from The Sandlot and Alfalfa. I honestly couldn't tell if this film was an ad for coffee or soccer. The parents should have had more screen time as it could have possibly helped the film with it's comedic moments.

Ferrell learns his life lesson at the end of the film, as is expected, and I guess it's a good one for kids to learn, but it's told in a strange way. They basically tell the kids to do the exact opposite of what Phil has told them, but for kids at a Young age, how are they going to know the opposite? Duvall seems really old here and looks like he would kill over any minute. He unfortunately didn't bring much to the table. It seemed like he tried to hard to be like Ken Titus.

Will Ferrell (Will the word, not the name) learn from his mistakes and step away from family friendly films and gear towards funny movies such as Oldschool and dare I say the mediocre Anchorman. Do yourself a favour and watch the Big Green instead, it's much funnier, and more friendly for the kids. Put please, stay away from this...and while were on the subject of soccer films to stay away from, put Home Team up there to.

2/10

[nebbit]

Kicking & Screaming

stay away from this...

2/10

OK :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (Tommy Lee Jones)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/sony_pictures_classics/the_three_burials_of_melquiades_estrada/_group_photos/tommy_lee_jones1.jpg


"A Good Directorial Debut From Two Face Himself"


Three Burials tells the story of a man who accidentally kills another. When Pete discovers that his friend has been killed, he takes matters into his own hands as he intends to keep the promise of burying Estrada in his homeland. Pete takes Norton, the murderer, hostage and they take a long journey to bury Estrada, along the way learning life lessons.

Jones can join the list of actors who want to break their mold and become directors. When I first heard about this film, I had no idea how to pronounce it, know after seeing it, I have a better idea at how to pronounce it, but still not one hundred percent. Here, Jones actually makes a good film with beautiful cinematography, good characters, great acting, and an interesting story.

Pepper throughout the entire film gets the crap beaten out of him. This was his journey through hell. He gets the crap kicked out of him, hit the face with a gun and a tea pot, hot coffee poured on him, bitten by a snake, dragged by a horse through water, among many more things. Pepper doesn't really show much emotion, until the final scene. He mostly plays a guy hurt, until the prays for forgiveness. Jones, plays the on the verge of going crazy ranch guy Pete. Jones is definitely the highlight of the film, making it his own in every sense of the word, from acting to directing. The supporting cast deliver what is expected to help get the film along. Although, I felt that January Jones was completely useless in this film. JJ, as I like to call her, was only there for eye candy. Some may argue that she is there to show that Pepper had everything, but abused it. That message may be there, but it's buried under so much that it is lost half way through the film. I also ask myself that if you eliminate a character from a film and nothing really changes, then they have no purpose. Well, if you eliminate JJ from the film, nothing changes other then it's running time.

The film is beautiful, ranging from deserted plains to high mountains, you get the sense of a journey that goes on forever. The cinematography is one of Burials highlights. Straight from the opening shot we get a sense of what we will be viewing. Although, the camera movement was awkward in the opening, specifically when the film had to pan down to the oncoming vehicle. It seemed to jerky and off with the rest of the film for me.

Three Burials ends abruptly and leaves the viewer with questions that they have to answer themselves. If you re one who likes everything to be answered, you may want to miss this film as we are never told if the boarder patrol catches up with our two characters, or even why the one character lied to Jones. The film is told in four parts, the first two chapters, which are the "first two burials" set up for the rest of the film. The rising action of the film is known as the "journey". At this point that you are either grabbed by the film, or wanting to leave. The final act is the "third burial", which is actually the real burial of Estrada and the most emotional part of the entire film.

For a first time effort, I applaud Jones. Burials was far more then what I expected it to be. I am interested in what Jones has to offer after this film though, to see if he's a one trick pony or not. Untiul then, Three Burials is an excellent film to watch, and a good directorial debut from two face himself.

8/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, I have been wanting to see this :yup:

[Iroquois]

Well when you pay $5 for a movie in a bargain bin, do you really think you're getting something decent?

Not really.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Well when you pay $5 for a movie in a bargain bin, do you really think you're getting something decent?

Not really.



Hey man, I also picked up Caddyshack and Suicide Kings.

[Iroquois]

Really? I must've missed that bit of info. Regardless, you have to admit it's unlikely.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Really? I must've missed that bit of info. Regardless, you have to admit it's unlikely.

True, I'm surprised I picked those titles up.

[TheUsualSuspect]

X-Men: The Last Stand (Brett Ratner)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/x_men__the_last_stand/_group_photos/famke_janssen20.jpg


"This Is A Perfect Example Of How To Destroy A Franchise"


A so called cure is found in the blood of a young mutant, which divides the world into two sections. Those who want it and those who don't. Magneto and his brotherhood seek to find this boy and capture him, while the X-men must stand together, through hard times and put a stop to Magneto and his evil ways.

Being a fan of the comics, I can say that the first X-men film did an okay job at bringing them to the big screen. The second film took the mutant powers to new levels, with more action and more mutants for us to feast our eyes on. It was a treat seeing so many childhood favourite characters come to life. The Last Stand is the third installment, the makers of the film decide to go heavy on the eye popping action and forget to bring everything else with it. Take a note, X-3 is the perfect example of how to destroy a franchise.

When Singer left the job to go direct Superman, I had my head searching for a director that could take over the job, Joss Whedon was my choice and after seeing Ratner's piece up on the big screen, I have come to think that many others would agree with my choice. The Last Stand has many problems with it, mainly the story line and how close to strays from the source material. Although, with the bad does come good, so the film is not a total travesty.

Some of the nit picks come from a continuation of the first two films, such as introducing Beast and Angel in the third film, when they are in fact original members (along with cyclops, iceman and Jean) of the X-men team. The Last Stand adds too many characters into the film from the comics, giving them only a little bit of screen time. Here's a lesson, when you want to please fans, do not introduce a character and use them for five minutes. Introducing Beast, Kitty Pride/Shadowcat, Leech (horribly done, I'll mention later), Angel, and Juggernaut, cause hell, they weren't juggling enough characters in X-2.

Back to Leech though, what's with the complete an utter disregard of the character? In the comics he is green and lives in the sewers, here he is played by the always creepy looking kid (See Ultraviolet and Godsend). If you need a cure type character, make a new one, do not soil another. Juggernaut is Xavier's stepbrother, yet nothing. Would it be confusing to the plot, possibly, but maybe a nod or something when they pass each other to Grey's house. Don't get me started on how they handled Callisto, they totally changed the character and her powers. Storm would wipe the floor with her, although, yet again Storm as a character is underused, just like the first two films. Even with Berry commanding a bigger role, she is still not used to her full potential. Could it possibly be because of Berry herself not being confident in her role?

Out of all the X-men story lines, the Dark Phoenix is probably the most recognizable. It is vast, emotional, and everything you could ever ask for in a comic book story line. Hmm, now why would you throw that into this movie when you already have another story line. The Dark Phoenix SAGA, did that word mean nothing to you? SAGA, should have a movie of it's own, one in which unites both Magneto and the X-men to take on a greater evil. Her story was completely rushed and used as a second handle to the main plot, of the cure. Granted, to make the story movie friendly, you'll need to change the fact they go into space, but please make it more friendly then what has been fed to us. Some major characters do hit the hay. Is it just me, or has one of the X-men character been getting the shaft over the last two X-men films? Read the comics guys, after Jean's death Cyclops leaves the X-men, not what happens in the film.

I was happy to see some nods for the hardcore fans out there, such as the "fastball special", the danger room and sentinels. The film, as I said before, is not all entirely bad. This review is from the fan boy in me. The Last Stand has a lot of action, which should please those who want to see the mutant powers in full effect. Unless you're a Colossus fan, he is underused yet again. The Juggernaut, after small fight with Logan, does nothing but run through walls. Iceman actually turned to ice, that was neat. Wolverine, doesn't seem like the brutal killer that he is in the comics, here we see him kicking guys in the nuts and saying comical stuff while doing it.

Ultimately, Ratner was the wrong man for the job. While the action was superb and the special effects off the wall, it all doesn't make up for the butchering of the story they've done. The ending has either finished the franchise all together or changed it drastically. If there are more films to come, will there be new villains? A Mr. Sinister perhaps, or how about Apocalypse. Probably not, we're probably going to get a BS story about how the cure is only short time, as what was hinted at by the end. Stupid story aside, and if you're not a die hard fan, Last Stand is...dare I say it....enjoyable.


5.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review. I have never read the comics so I liked the movie more than you, the real story was not something I thought about, I can see how it may have been a disapointment to you :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Superman Returns (Bryan Singer)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/superman_returns/brandon_routh/supes14.jpg


"It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's....One Great Movie"

Superman leaves earth to see if there are any remains of his home planet, Krypton. Five years later, Superman returns...but now things are different. Lux Luthor is out of prison, Louis Lane has found a new love and has a child. Is there really a need for Superman anymore?

Bryan Singer is no stranger to comic book films, after all he's directed two of them himself. Singer left the X-men series to try and tackle something bigger, something that would prove to be a challenge for him. In terms of superheros, you can't get any bigger then the Man of Steel himself, Superman.

Many people will say to this day that Christopher Reeves is the one and only Superman. While he was good for the role, Brandon Routh does an exceptional job at resurrecting that character and breathing new life into him. At first some may be hesitant of the newcomer, but he does not disappoint. Not only does he do a great job with Superman, but also excels with Clark Kent. Looking almost identical as Reeves, Routh pulls off both identities of Superman. I guess you can say that the torch has been passed on now. Even though Routh is excellent as Superman, he is not the stand out performance in this film. Before you even see the film, you know who is going to "own" the film and he does. Kevin Spacey is Lex Luthor and he does it so incredibly well. You can't help but smile whenever his shinny bald head, which is a good look for Spacey, comes upon the screen. He plays Luthor with a little bit more evil then Hackman did, with a small humours side. Kate Bosworth plays the role as it is written, and nothing more. Margot Kidder is still the one and only Louis Lane. Bosworth was out of place and they could have found another actress to play her....Rachel McAdams anyone?

The supporting cast, Frank Langella, Sam Huntington, James Marsden (I was waiting for him to shoot laser beams out of his eyes) all do very well in bringing back the vibe of the Daily Planet. Sam Huntington is the comic relief of the film, playing the dopey Jimmy Olsen, the only other comedy, comes from Spacey. Parker Posey was annoying in the film, she really doesn't serve a purpose other then crying on cue. Kal Penn is another character who doesn't do much but stand around.

The special effects are great. With a man like Superman who has superhuman powers, you can have so much fun with it and they clearly do. Being able to see through walls was a neat addition to the film and the super hearing of people in other rooms. Of course, the plane sequence was a feat for the eyes and the final climatic scene. The film makes good use of the technique in which you convert the actor to CGI. Unlike Blade II and The MAtrix Reloaded, in which you can clearly tell the difference, here it's a little less noticeable. Granted it's not perfect, but you do have that "Look how fake that was" look on your face through the film.

The story is very much like something that you can pull right out of the comics. Luthor trying to raise his own continent while the Kryptonite. Throughout the whole film though, the "how am I going to get out of this situation" seems to lack a bit, cause you know that at the last second Superman will come and all he has to do is fly here, stop that, or pull this. There's a little bit of tension with the characters, but you know at the end of the day that they are all going to live, because it IS Superman.

I did get chills with the opening credits, hearing Brando's voice, then the old school Superman theme. It sends chills down the spine, in a good way. Then the names fly across the scene, much like the original. The theme is all over the movie and the score has that "comic book epic" tone to it. Although, after the climax of the film it does go on for awhile, so near the end of the film it does drag a bit. The whole Superman in hospital scene was "what the hell" moment.

Overall this is a great film, with only one or two missteps. Singer does an excellent job at reinventing the Superman franchise, much like Nolan did with Batman. Superman is the best superhero film this year and one of the best all time. It is leaps and bounds over X-Men: The Last Stand. Returns is the summer event of the year and it's action and energy leaps over tall buildings. Pirates will be huge as well and great indeed, but Superman Returns is a film that people have been waiting for for years and it does not disappoint.

8/10

[Escape]

Yes Yes. The opening theme song definitely sends chills down the spine. And of course that baseball diamond incident. ;)

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review, even though it has mixed reviews here, I am going to see it this week :yup:

[Terminator734]

SR is definitly worth checking out on the big screen for the SFX extravaganza that it is or better yet go see it at IMAX if u can it will definitly makes an impression

[TheUsualSuspect]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Gore Verbinski)


http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/walt_disney/pirates_of_the_caribbean__dead_man_s_chest/deadmanschest_attack.jpg



"Great In Doses...But The Film Accomplishes Nothing"

Captain Jack Sparrow owes an unpaid debt to Davy Jones and his underwater sea creatures. The deal was that he would be captain of the black pearl for 13 years, in return for his soul. Time’s up for Jack and he must pay up. Will Turner is set to find Jack and return his compass in order to save Elizabeth and himself from a deadly penalty for aiding and abetting the pirate. Jack strikes another deal with Davy Jones, he must find 100 souls so he may keep his own.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is the much anticipated sequel to POC: Curse of the Black Pearl. With every sequel, one must be able to up the ante. People expect more action, more adventure, more danger, and more love challenged between the characters. At first glance it would seem that Dead Man’s Chest would deliver all of this and more. Unfortunately, it suffers from many things and relies on too much in order to get the audience to go along with the ride. When compared to the original, and you always compare the sequel to the original, Dead Man’s Chest doesn’t match up. The film is good, it was quite good and it will most definitely entertain, but the film doesn’t seem to accomplish all too much.

Dead Man’s Chest and it’s soon to be released sequel At World’s End (what a goofy title) takes a note from the Matrix trilogy. Both movies were filmed at the same time and will most likely start off directly where the other left off. The ending to DMC does in fact set up everything in the third. Much like reloaded though, no matter how good this film is, it won’t be able to touch the original. My main complaint is that the characters accomplish nothing. DMC is a much darker film then Pearl, at the end the characters are basically left with nothing which is suppose to make us want to see the next installment even more to see how they get out of such predicaments, specifically speaking, Jack Sparrow’s current situation. But like I said before, the characters accomplish nothing. At the beginning of the film, Will and Elizabeth are suppose to get married, they don’t, They are suppose to get the Dead Man’s Chest, they don’t. Will is suppose to free his father, he doesn’t. Jack is suppose to the souls, he doesn’t. DMC is just one long set up for the third film, which makes me beg the question. Did this story really need to be split up into two films? There was so much that they could have cut out in order to condense the two film into one. But alas, we live in a greedy world.

Depp, does very well with Sparrow, as is expected. Although, Sparrow seemed to come off as too feminine in this film, I don’t know if this was just me but that’s what I got from Depp’s performance. From the way he would run to the way he would try and grab the key off the Commodore. This doesn’t hurt the film all too much, but it can be distracting. Bloom, he seemed to annoy me in this film. As he does in every other film he is in, save for LOTR. Not necessarily his performance, but his voice. The way he tries to seem commanding but comes off as a pretty boy. Keira Knightley was alright here, she doesn’t do all that much and there is no real chemistry here between her or Bloom. Or even character development for that matter. Hats off to Nighy, he did a superb job replacing Rush as the main villain. The special effects of his character were very well done and you can see how they modeled this character after him with every expression that he makes. His “sea phantoms” are another great treat for the eyes. These guys make the skeletons in the original look like nothing. I really enjoyed seeing the ship burst out from underneath the water surface. Skarsgård was another treat, for the very little screen time that he had, he did a mighty fine job. But what was with the voodoo chick? I did not understand half of what she said.

The special effects are great and are perfect for the “summer blockbuster adventure” film. From the giant sea creature to the sea phantoms, everything is top notch. I spotted one or two off beat parts but that’s mainly due to the crazy factor of what was on the screen. Seeing the creature destroy the ships was great. But that’s the only real adventure action type sequences we get. Other then a long and drawn out sword fight on a giant wheel, that was cool at first, but once it kept rolling, the cool factor was rolling away with it. The sword fights do not match the original in any way, but that’s not supposed to be the highlight, it’s the huge sea creature destroying everything in its path.

The comedy did seem forced in some parts. You could tell that they were going for the funny in some scenes but it doesn’t always work. Sparrow is basically one joke after the other, or one funny look after the other. There are funny parts in the film, but it just tried to capture the same spirit as the original, but it doesn’t. The score is great and has that “adventurous” feel to it, even if it is played once too many. But when you have a great score like that, or Superman, you’re suppose to play it every chance you get.

In the end, Dead Man’s Chest is a good summer action adventure film. It does deliver on the action, the comedy (in parts), the excitement, the special effect and the enjoyment. Although, you may find yourself wondering what more they could have done, why the film is so long with so many things that do not even need to be in here. As well as with the final scene, you may have some questions that you can only pray for get answered in the final…hopefully final installment.

7.5/10

[nebbit]

Thanks Pyro :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Pyro?