One Movie A Day Remix

[nebbit]

Nice reviews :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 110: August 18th, 2010

Sideways

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/sideways.jpg?t=1285117620

In search of wine. In search of women. In search of themselves.

Paul Giamatti should have a least been nominated for his role in Sideways. It's probably his greatest performance to date. Sad sack and and depression magnet, Miles goes on a trip with friend Jack to go wine tasting. Jack is about to get married and the two are having one last hurrah before he walks down that aisle. The film is written and directed by Alexander Payne and it was his last directorial effort. The film was released in 2004. We need Payne to be writing and directing more films so we can actually have the pleasure of watching something good on our screens.

As I mentioned earlier, Giamatti gives a touching and hysterical performance in a film full of them. Thomas Hayden Church can thank this film for resurrecting his career from the pits of George of the Jungle 2. Sandra Oh and Virginia Madson 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 from that female perspective that was needed.

A well written script, which is no surprise since it's Payne. Deservedly winning the Oscar that year. When I saw this film in the theatres, I walked into the film thinking it was going to be a straight up drama, and was pleasantly surprised to see it was a comedy. The comedy still works today since it's not in your face slapstick humour. It's the actions of the characters and their choices that make us laugh.

The ending was perfect for the tone of this film. It fits the theme so well that if it were different I would be disappointed. It's anti-Hollywood and it works. The characters are real and we are able to connect with them, the film is one of the best of the year (2004) and certainly one of my favourites.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 111: August 19th, 2010

A.I.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/a-i-poster.jpg?t=1285118607

David is 11 years old. He weighs 60 pounds. He is 4 feet, 6 inches tall. He has brown hair. His love is real. But he is not.

Oh, how I wish it were Kubrick directing this. I can only imagine how different it would have been. Spielberg is not as visceral as Kubrick and is too smooth with his filmmaking. Kubrick was hard edged and A.I. needed that because the subject matter certainly was.

A.I. or Artificial Intelligence, tells the tale of a robot boy who desperately wants to become real. Pinocchio for the updated generation. It stars the hottest young actor at the time, Haley Joel Osment as the young robotic boy and Jude Law as a robot named Gigolo Joe.

A.I. tries so hard to capture that Kubrick feeling and if this is Spielberg's tribute to the filmmaker, then it's a shallow one. There are people out there who would argue otherwise and say that it is the perfect tribute to such a filmmaker. I guess that's what made Kubrick so good. Imitated, but never duplicated, sorry Steven.

The film went on far way too long. It should have ended with the boy lost forever in time under the water. Had that been the actual ending, the ending I have to believe was the one that Kubrick wanted, I would have given this a better rating. But this is not the case. The dark and brooding ending was elongated into something that Spielberg was hoping would make people shed a tear.

A.I. has some interested ideas and some nice special effects, but the material was simply not in Spielberg's taste. The themes and subject matter was Kubrick, the images and stlye was Spielberg. Do they work together? In my opinion no, but it was an interesting mix, I'll say that. A.I. fails to deliver in my opinion and is a bore to watch. Is it a coincidence this was Osment's real last big film? Second Hand Lions was his attempt to try and come back but it obviously didn't work.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 112: August 20th, 2010

The Human Centipede

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/human.jpg?t=1285120534

100% Medically Accurate.

So when I got the chance to see The Human Centipede at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, I jumped at the chance. It was the closing gala night film (what else would close?) I think the theatre helped make the experience of this film better than watching it alone.

The title and trailer made this film the hype sensation it was and the most talked about horror film of the year. Can a film live up to such a bizarre and disgusting premise? The answer is yes and no. The film does deliver on what it promises, a human centipede and it has some good laughs in it. I found the film to be a comedy more than a horror. Although, with every positive, there is a negative and the film doesn't go FAR ENOUGH!!! What!!?!?!?!?! Is he serious? Yes, I am.

With a film like this, one that has generated such a considerable amount of buzz about how grotesque the subject matter is, you would expect the film to be pretty disgusting. The Human Centipede is not disgusting. First of all, it's all imagination. The film has one scene that might get people gagging a bit, but I expected more than half of the film to be like that. It's not. The director Tom Six seems to have let the concept get the best of him and thought to himself that this concept alone will make a entertaining film. The answer is unfortunately no. A concept does not make a film.

I don't applaud Tom Six, I applaud the two actresses who had to 'act' 3/4 of the film in the centipede position. The film tries to build some suspense but it's pretty hard when you have three people moving at a snails pace around a house. The film has it's funny moments, which are all primarily given by the mad doctor, the brilliant Dieter Laser. He knows he's in a crappy film and he plays up the role beyond hilarity and over the top cheese.

The Human Centipede is a horror film that is weak on the horror and would rather rely on a concept that try to say something about modern horror or anything for that matter. Characters do stupid things, the 'horror' is hidden and makes you think about the disgustingness rather than show it. The Human Centipede follows with a few words (The First Sequence). So expect a sequel, especially since the film was such a huge thing.

The film got so much buzz over the concept alone. There was hardly any chance that the film would be able to match it. So a lot of people will be setting themselves up for disappointment. It is a great concept, otherwise people wouldn't be talking about it, but the film on the other hand falls a little short.

Well, at the screening they asked for some people to demonstrate the human centipede. Once a guy saw that two females were on stage, he ran up there. He was also asian, coincidence? Before the movie started they also told us that the tagline they used was correct. Is this really 100% medically accurate? Who knows, I hope not.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 113: August 21st, 2010

Piranha 3D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Piranha.jpg

Boobs, Blood and Doc Brown.

An underwater tremor unleashes thousands of hungry Piranha that have thought to have been extinct for millions of years. Bad timing, because it's Spring Break.

Piranha was, what some people called, a rip off of Jaws. Another person wanting a piece of the pie. It went on to have a sequel, to be directed by the now famous James Cameron and it seems that it is time for a remake, in 3D no less. Do we need a remake? Probably not, but the film is fun and excessively violent, which makes for a good time for those looking for b- movie horror goodness. Piranha delivers on the levels it aims for, take that as you want to.

Alexandre Aja directs this film, let's just forget he did Mirrors okay? He gets the bloody mess off to an interesting start by having Richard Dreyfuss in the film. A nod to Jaws no doubt, but one can only assume that he had him in here to say that this film is either a: More scarier or B: More dangerous. I'd go with the latter because the film isn't scary. What's more dangerous though? One shark, or thousands of Piranhas? You pick.

So it's Spring Break, so the fish have hundreds of young drunk teenagers to eat, and boy do they eat. The film doesn't shy away from the bloody truth. Piranha's can strip a cow to it's bones in minutes, these guys are more aggressive. They've been feeding off each other for millions of years and now they have a variety of meat to pick from. Yummy. So people die in bloody, over the top, funny ways. The film is one for the people who cheer when someone has their legs torn off. If that's not you, you might want to stay away from this one.

Also, if you're not a fan of naked women, you might want to stay away from this one. This film is full of naked women, left right and centre. There is even an underwater naked swimming dance sequence set to opera music. It's weird and funny at the same time because it comes out of nowhere.

The film could have used more of it's cast. We have Richard Dreyfuss, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd and Eli Roth. All of them are underused. Rhames, I thought was going to have a more hero type role, he doesn't. Roth has a total of maybe two scenes as does Lloyd. Dreyfuss only shows up at the beginning of the film. Once again, an interesting cast that is not put to good use. The film decides to stick with the blood and boobs.

The film is in 3D. I expected to have more fun with it than I did. Although I did enjoy it more than other 3D films I've seen. It has a more gimmicky feel to it and it actually fits with the film. Seeing bits of Piranha fly up at you is fun. Boobs in 3D, fish in 3D but the things that were used the most were the underwater coral reefs.

The theatre lost power near the end, so the last 3 or so minutes of the film we saw with no sound, but I could tell what was going to happen, even with the lack of audio. I'm not letting that affect my review for the film, but I can sense that the film was going to go for one of those jump-scare-abrupt endings.

Piranha 3D is a hoot, for those who know what they are getting into. In my theatre there were children, this is NOT A KIDS MOVIE!!!! This is more bloody and violent than any SAW film. Piranha is full of cheesy moments, and it works.

3

[mark f]

I guess I read this someplace else a few weeks ago?

[TheUsualSuspect]

I guess I read this someplace else a few weeks ago?

You're quite the detective.

You can also expect to see similar reviews of A Serbian Film, The Town and Machete.

You get a lollipop.

[Brodinski]

Nice reviews, especially on Sideways.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 114: August 22nd, 2010

Stranger Than Fiction

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/stranger_than_fiction.jpg?t=1285888310

Harold Crick Is About To Die...

I like the idea behind this film. It has enough quirkiness to it to make it likable. Add the fact that Will Ferrell is playing a somewhat straighter role than his over the top performances that came before and some clever direction and you have a successful film. Stranger Than Fiction is a successful film that is lighthearted and smart.

Zack Helm penned the screenplay and much attention came his way immediately. He followed it up with the child friendly and little too cute Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, desperately trying to get a memorable character out there. Since then he has been under the radar. Fiction is his first major film and it seems fresh. The idea isn't all that original, but the film spins it enough ways to make it seem so.

Stranger Than Fiction is a fantasy film that will leave you smiling. It's something outside Will Ferrell's comfort zone, but he makes it look easy. I wouldn't mind seeing him in a couple more roles like this. A touch of humour here and there, but nothing like Ron Burgundy.

Stranger Than Fiction stands as one of those films that when people talk about it, they usually say they liked it. Not a film that people fall in love with, but a good film nonetheless.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 115: August 23rd, 2010

A Serbian Film

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Serbian-Film-Poster.jpg?t=1285889177

A poor man's attempt at shock value fails as the film that goes over the edge has no real purpose.

He can say whatever he wants re: his reasons behind the film, but it lacks any sense of human decency. If you want to see this film because so many people are hyping it up based on the controversy, I'd recommend not to. I'm one to always watch a film if it's ticked enough people off. Cannibal Holocaust and Cannibal Ferox were two of them, I Spit On Your Grave was another. Yet those films are bound by the genre they represent themselves in. Exploitation and Revenge horror. A Serbian Film doesn't fall under these categories. I would suspect that Nicolas Cage would find this film on his quest in 8mm.

Rape, Murder By Penis, Incest, Child Molestation, Necrophilia, etc...these things do not make for a good film, or someone wanting to tell a good story. It's simply someone who wants to take you into a world where these things happen and then excessively push you deeper into a hyper realized madness.

The newborn baby scene wasn't as bad as I expected. Had I gone in not knowing it was going to happen, I might have cringed more. Plot points were predictable, specifically everything that happens in the climax. The actors were mediocre at best. The direction showed some potential, but the subject matter cheapens it, specifically when he also wrote it.

We all know Serbia is a messed up place, but we don't need to sit through an agonizing film that drags on and on about the so called atrocities. Even if that was the intention of the filmmaker, which I honestly think it wasn't. He is quotes as saying "This is a diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government...It's about the monolithic power of leaders who hypnotize you to do things you don't want to do. You have to feel the violence to know what it's about." Cue my eyes rolling.

As the film ended I was left sitting there thinking to myself, sure some scenes were disturbing, but at the same time they felt empty. The obvious going for shock value loses some of it's appeal as the filmmakers try too hard to push buttons. I'm not saying they don't, they undoubtedly do. This is a film I don't recommend to anyone, not even those looking for something shocking. Not because it's too much to handle, but because it's simply a bad film.

I'll give credit to those who humiliated themselves taking part in this, being an actor is hard. Do they filmmakers have balls for creating this film? Yes and no. For me, I'm fine sticking with Cannibal Holocaust and yes I still want to see Salo. If you want to watch a film that is hard to stomach, so see Martyrs.

1

[PumaMan]

The film went on far way too long. It should have ended with the boy lost forever in time under the water. Had that been the actual ending, the ending I have to believe was the one that Kubrick wanted, I would have given this a better rating. But this is not the case. The dark and brooding ending was elongated into something that Spielberg was hoping would make people shed a tear.


I'm one of the few people who like A.I. And I like the ending more so than the rest of it (I know, I'm also in the minority here). It did make me shed a tear -- and still does. The beautiful John Williams song For Always helps jerk the tears. And I felt sad for little loyal Teddy, left there on his own at the end.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 116: August 24th, 2010

The Devil's Rejects

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the-devils-rejects-cover-3.jpg?t=1285889804

Rob Zombie's best film to date.

That's not saying much, but The Devil's Rejects is pure trashy goodness. It pushes the boundaries of what's acceptable in Hollywood and unlike A Serbian Film, it actually has something to say and not simply shock. IT HAS STORY.

Rob Zombie is famous for his music and he is bringing his horror side to the movie industry. This is his second feature film and a sequel to his first film. House of 1,000 Corpses had people in the horror community giddy with excitement...until it was released. It wasn't as shocking, or horrific as it was billed to be. It's throwback to the days of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre were admirable, but ultimately flat. With The Devil's Rejects, he has redeemed himself.

Not so much horror as it is a road film with lots of realistic violence. There are shootouts the open and close the film and no real moments of scary horror. The realism of the film is what brings it into the horror territory. The film is more realistic than it's predecessor, which makes it all the more frightening.

Rejects has a great soundtrack to accompany the visuals. It adds to the western feel Zombie was going for. This family is deranged and sick. I never rooted for them, but it was fun watching them on the screen. The Devil's Rejects is a great film with memorable performances from classic actors in the horror genre. If you were disappointed with House of 1,000 Corpses and decided to skip this. Do yourself a favour and give it a look.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 117: August 25th, 2010

Seven Samurai

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/SevenSamurai.jpg?t=1285890588

A Masterpiece.

If you were to watch this film for the first time right now, it might not seem like much, but at the time it was something that would turn out to be a magnificent achievement in filmmaking.

A small village is constantly under attack by well armed bandits. They find a man who will help them and he rounds up 6 samurai to help.

If you could only watch one film in your lifetime, this one is it.

I said that when I first reviewed this film and I stand by that. Seven Samurai is unprecedented. It's a must see for anyone who would call themselves a fan of film. So many elements that are employed in today's movies were first put together here, in this epic tale.

Each samurai has their own arc to them, Kurosawa takes his time to develop each character and it works. The film is indeed long and that epic battle doesn't happen till the end, but the film is intergrading the viewer into the life os these warriors. We care who lives and dies. For anyone to get this emotional response with one character is an achievement....but seven? Extraordinary.

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 benefit. The battle is so massive it spawns roughly 30 some odd minutes. It has influenced all the films we see today, The Return of The King, The Magnificent Seven, Narnia. Please don't see this film expecting Braveheart, because there will be no limbs flying off the screen. 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 honorable, 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.

Seven 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.

5

[mark f]

I certainly agree with your assessment of Seven Samurai, but The Devil's Rejects being worth that high? I have to really think about what I want to say about that. :cool:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Say whatever comes to your mind.

Zombie hits the nail on the head in this tale of depravity.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 118: August 26th, 2010

Couples Retreat

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/couples-retreat-poster.jpg?t=1286599261

It may be paradise... but it's no vacation

The problem with this film is that it's not funny. The script is poorly thrown together to get some good looking females and some comedic guys in some tropical island paradise. That would be one of two reasons why I think so many funny people are in this flick, they get the chance to spent time in such a gorgeous place. The second would be that thing called a pay cheque.

The casting works and it doesn't. The male actors get most of the laughs...or I should say chuckles....wait, I mean smirks. I attribute this to their comedic talents, not the script. Favreau stands out in my opinion and it's nice to see him get some screen time, since his life has been dedicated to some kind of iron man. Vaughn does his usual thing, which grows tiresome at points, but at others he shows why people love him. His fast paced dialogue works here for the most part. Faizon Love and Jason Bateman also play the roles as they usually do, so serious forms of effort.

The women on the other hand, with the exception of Kristin Davis suffer tremendously. The script seems to favour the men for the funny bits and the women are left with nothing. Malin Akerman has been in some funny films, but here she plays the role straight and isn't a match for Vaughn. Kristen Bell is cute and adorable, here she is the wife of Jason Bateman...what? Who the hell decided that this pairing was a good choice? They are the least believable of all the couples.

As I said, the locale is gorgeous and it makes you sit there and cry at the fact that you're not there, instead your sitting at home jealous of these people and the fun they get to have. The script lacks the comedic touch, it also follows the path that every other comedy that deals with couples set before it. Couple have problems, throw them in unknown situation, they have a big fight over something, then come to realize they do love each other. Uninspired and coupled with the fact that the film is suppose to be funny but isn't, only hurts it more.

Couples Retreat is a film you can miss and be happy that you did. Not even the man himself, Jean Reno, can save this disaster.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 119: August 27th, 2010

Kick Ass

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/kick-ass_poster.jpg?t=1286599623

I can't read your mind. But I can kick your ass.

Kick Ass, based on the comic series of the same name, takes the super hero genre and makes it more relatable to those who want to see them. We are exactly like our lead character, normal. He dreams of something bigger, of being a super hero, the problem is that he has no super powers, but that doesn't stop him. After a freak accident, he ends up with a rebuilt skeletal structure and some nerves are damaged making him feel next to no pain. Whoops, looks like he gets some kind of 'superpower' after all.

Kick Ass is vibrant, violent and doesn't care if it plays with fire and gets burned. The controversy over the film is in regards to the little girl, playing hit Girl. She uses foul language and shoots a lot of people (let's not forget the slice and dice scene). To hell with these people, that includes Mr. Roger Ebert. Kick Ass is exactly what the title suggests, it kicks ass. The film is popcorn entertainment that is shot with the slick talent of Matthew Vaughn.

True to the source material with some changes here and there to accommodate a film, Kick Ass looks, feels and sounds like a comic book. The bright colours, the cheesy dialogue, the corrupt bad guys and the flash violence. This is a comic book world and we live in it.

The film treads in both comedy and action. The comedic bits are here and there but the film never is laugh out loud funny. The sprinkled bits work with the overall theme of the film and the violence, which isn't that bad, playfully is cartoonish. There is even one cartoon scene that is shot like a motion comic, it works extremely well.

The father-daughter relationship was the most interesting to me and Nic Cage does his best Adam West impression with ease. It may just be me, but I like him as an actor and he does a great job here. Christopher Mintz-Plasse seems to be trying to break free of his McLovin role, yet he still has that linger in this character and I think always will be.

The villain could use a bit more to beef up the role, but Mark Strong knows his evilness. As he does with Sherlock Holmes, he plays bad, very well. Expect to see him in more villain roles in the near future.

Check out Kick Ass, recommended.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 120: August 28th, 2010

Dagon

http://chizine.com/images/dagon_poster.jpg

Gordon's most approachable film.

Two couples on a boat get shipwrecked on some rocks. One couple goes looking for help while the other stay with the boat. Bad idea...the town the couple goes to looking for help, is full of mutated fish people. Yup, Dagon is a horror film that dives into the world of the sea...on land.

The film has it's fair share of problems, one too many chase scenes for my liking, but the film is well made and has the Gordon stamp on it. The aspect of the film that drew me in was the fact that these people on this island were fish people for crying out loud. I was waiting for Kevin Costner from Waterworld to pop up in a scene, but he never did. The human characters weren't in the least bit interesting but neither were the fish people. Much of the film consists of them chasing the one character around town.

This character they are chasing, he suffers from nightmares about a fish lady, whom he later meets. She thinks they are destined to be together, he is of course freaked out and wants to get off this damn rock. So more chasing!!!

What is Dagon you ask? Well, it's a God that all the fish people worship. In a flashback sequence, we see that a fisherman comes to the island and preaches the word of Dagon. He throws this object into the water and Dagon pops up. Later, while the people are fishing, the find gold in the water and they reject God and the church and praise their new lord, Dagon.

Some of the film is a tad confusing, plot details that are left out in the open with no explanation. I can get pass this little details enough so to like the film. It helps me liking the film with the fact that there are two memorable scenes, one involving a face ripping scene and the other is basically the entire climax right to the end.

Despite the repetitive nature of Dagon, the film is enjoyable enough for me to recommend to horror enthusiasts. Most of Stuart Gordon's work isn't for everyone though and those looking for his style in the genre can be happy with the result of this one. It's no Re-Animator, but I think it's his most approachable one.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 121: August 29th, 2010

Ghosts of Mars

http://www.trexle.net/img/posters/12/003_GHOSTSOAOS.jpg

The film that ended Carpenter's career.

Was this the film that pretty much killed John Carpenter's film career? If it weren't for the Masters of Horror series, would we ever see a film from thus guy again? His most recent films, including this one, have taken a lot of heat from critics and fans alike, but I'm one of the people who loved Vampires and thought that Ghosts of Mars (upon first viewing) was pretty decent.

A mix of Assault on Precinct 13 and pretty much any sci/fi or horror, Ghosts of Mars tries to be too many things in one. It tries action, it tries science fiction, it tries horror. The results are a mixed bag of interesting ideas that are executed poorly, from a guy who should know better. Ghosts of Mars (except for his additions in the Masters series) is Carpenter's only film past the year 2000. I hope his return to the genre (The Ward) will get him back on the right tracks.

Ice Cube is a convict named Desolation Williams. I can only think of one man who could possibly try to fight this guy with a better name and that would be John Matrix. He is with people behind the badge, including Jason Statham, Natasha Henstridge and Pam Grier. This film could follow anyone of these characters and they would be the main star. Yet we are suppose to follow Henstridge's character, who is addicted to this drug. She is boring.

The horror is shallow and the sci/fi is pretty much the fact that they are on mars. The film is more action oriented than anything else. Some of the deaths are horrific, but that's it. These ghosts are lame and not scary.

The film isn't bad enough to end someone's career, which this did until recently. It's just misguided. I can see it having some fans and those who like the good because their bad style movies. If the flick is on late at night and I'm at home alone with nothing else to do, I can see myself watching this.

2

[nebbit]

I knew Couples Retreat would be yuck :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 122: August 30th, 2010

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/ThreeBurials.jpg?t=1286737773

Nobody is beyond redemption.

As the title suggests, Estrada dies. He is shot by accident and his friend (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to take matters into his own hands. He wants to keep his promise to him by burying him in his homeland. Jones takes the killer (Barry Pepper) hostage and together they take a long journey to bury Estrada.

Jones is yet another actor turned director, he actually does a good job behidn the camera and I wouldn't mind seeing him turn out more films. Jones gives us a beautifully filmed piece with good characters and an interesting story. I still find the film to be a little slow in places which hurt the overall flow of an otherwise great film.

Jones really gives it to Pepper in the film, he gets the snot beaten out of him on a regular basis. A journey through hell to put it lightly. Pepper doesn't show his acting chops until later in the film when he prays for forgiveness, usually he's just playing 'get hit in the face' a lot. Jones, who not only directs but acts here as well plays the role on the edge of insanity, in my opinion. Sometimes when actors take on dual roles of director and actor, one might suffer because their attention is on one more than the other. Jones doesn't make this mistake, he is the highlight of the film from this cast. I still didn't find January Jones having much use. Last time I reviewed this film I said she was nothing more than eye candy. While I see more progress with her character now than before, I still think she could have used more screen time to flesh out her problems and solutions.

The film ranges from deserted plains to high mountain tops. You get the sense of the journey they embark on is not a trek in the backyard. Unfortunately, the film ends a little too abruptly for me, leaving the viewer with questions that should have more than likely been answered. You can image that with the title The Three Burials, that there will be three of them. The film is told in four parts, the first two chapters are the first two burials, which set up the rest of the film. The emotional weigh of the film rests on the third and final burial.

I know there are people here who love this film *cough*Holden*cough*

3.5

[Brodinski]

I still didn't find January Jones having much use. Last time I reviewed this film I said she was nothing more than eye candy. While I see more progress with her character now than before, I still think she could have used more screen time to flesh out her problems and solutions.3.5

I think she's a bit of a one-trick poney. It's been a while since I watched this film, but I remember thinking that she was just duplicating a lot of the facial expressions of her Mad Men character, Betty Draper. It bothered me quite a lot and I thought her casting was a bit of a letdown in an otherwise good film.

I agree with you ranking and I too thought that the ending was a bit abrupt. It left me with too many questions, as you say. Films like Mulholland Drive also do this, but I don't mind that much if I still have a sense of being able to answer these questions. I didn't really get that in The Three Burials as it plays more on a psychological level.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 123: August 31st, 2010

Sublime

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/sublime-poster.jpg?t=1287634036

Maybe... if you spend your life worrying... then the only way that your life will have meaning is if what you fear becomes real.

The problem with Sublime, is that the most interesting and best executed part of the film is the last 10 to 15 minutes. This last bit of the film is suppose to be a big reveal, have the core bits of emotion and leave the viewer asking questions. It does have all these elements, only it's the wrong ending for this type of film. The ending that Sublime gives us belongs in dramatic pieces and this is where this film really dropped the ball. It should have been a dramatic piece, not a so called horror film.

I use the term horror loosely because there is nothing of the sort in here, except one little scene that makes no sense and belongs in the Hostel films instead. The film goes between two different story lines. The present and the past. In the present we follow George as he goes to the hospital for a routine colonoscopy. Bad news for George, the docs did the wrong surgery on the wrong man and not he has some issues. We follow George as he tries to figure out why he was given the wrong surgery and tries to solve the mystery behind the East Wing. The other story line that is in the past is George's 40th birthday. These flashbacks are scattered throughout, usually when George goes to sleep because he is always feeling tired (or is someone drugging him?) These scenes try their best to develop character, but they end up being distracting time fillers.

This is not a horror film, it is actually a psychological piece, a poorly written, acted and directed one I might add. George is constantly yelling at people, his sexy nurse is just that, and we have no sympathy for him. We need to care about this guy is we are stuck with him and want to see him escape this bizarre place. As I mentioned earlier, the best parts of this film are near the end. The reveal of what really is going on doesn't add much to the film, but the elements that play out after it does. I was actually interested now, I wanted to know what was going to happen, but damn this film was more than an hour late in that department.

Sublime is a film marketed to one genre audience and it is made for another. The old switcharoo. This could be the reason why a lot of people did not like it, but it doesn't help when the film is simply poorly thrown together. Skip Sublime, because it's just the opposite of that.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 124: September 1st , 2010

Awake

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/awake_poster-2.jpg?t=1287634356

Every year, one in 700 people wake up during surgery.

From one medical themed film to another. AWAKE is a thriller that deals with the main character lying on a table knocked out for almost the entire film. How thrilling and suspenseful can that be? We need to make it exciting. Okay, he is actually AWAKE We'll call it....AWAKE.

Brilliant mate, who are we going to cast in this film? It has to be someone with strong acting range, people have to believe he is asleep on the table, but with voice over will also believe he is actually AWAKE. Hmm, how about Hayden Christensen? Who? Anakin Skywalker from Star Wars? That little kid? No, the other one, the older one. Yeah, he can act. He was the best thing about those movies right? Hmm, he needs a girlfriend though, someone he tries to contact while asleep, but he's really AWAKE. We need another actor with strong emotional depth that knows no bound. Hmm, how about that stripper from that movie about sin and cities. The one that refuses to take her clothes off? Yeah, what's her name? Alba? Jessica Alba. She can act. She was the best thing about Fantastic Four, right?

We are missing something though, we need an antagonist. Someone who is doing something....wait, what's the something. What is this film really about? Shh, it's a secret and a twist that will have a big reveal at the end. Oh, hell, whatever, it's about money. But who do we cast as the guy performing the surgery. We need someone who has some street cred. Like a former pimp or something, cause it's hard out there for a pimp right? I've got it, we'll cast the whitest black guy in Hollywood. Terrence Howard? Yeah, that's him. He's got street cred right? What's this film called again? AWAKE

We still need more characters dammit, like a drunk guy who is also in the surgical room...but he won't be in on it. He'll inadvertently ruin their plan, we need to stall as much as possible to keep the running time going. He can only be asleep and AWAKE for so long before that gets boring. Throw some obstacles in their way. What the hell, who needs money these days? Christopher McDonald does right? He'll do it. We also need a strong old school female actress to be his mother. The one who won't give up hope in the face of darkness. Someone with amazing talent. We should get that woman from Bang Bang Orangutang. Lena Olin? Throw her in too.

WAIT, brilliant thought just now. While he is asleep, but actually AWAKE we can have the mother OD on drugs, just enough to knock her unconscious where she can meet up with her son in limbo world and she can talk to him get the truth about what's happening, and solve some family problems while they're at it. That's legit right? Legit? That's brilliant, throw it in the script. We should also have the girlfriend be in on it right? What a twist!!!

Awesome, we have a great 90 minutes film here. Oh wait, it's only 84 minutes? Well, who cares. The trailers and advertisements in the theatres before the movie will make it seem longer.

AWAKE.

0.5

[Iroquois]

Throw in some abrupt shifts in font size and colour and that could've been a Sexy Celebrity review.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I was thinking that after I wrote it. :p

[planet news]

I fell asleep less than ten minutes into Seven Samurai. Masterpiece my ass.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 125: September 2nd , 2010

On The Waterfront

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/waterfront.jpg?t=1287636802

The Man Lived by the Jungle Law of the Docks!

Marlon Brando, what a guy, what an actor. A great performance here and a great film as well. Think of your favourite actor....he wishes he was Brando (if you didn't think of Brando :p )

On The Waterfront is a powerful film that has Brando as an ex-prize fighter, standing up to the union bosses after he is unknowingly involved in a murder. Brando shines as the torn, uneducated man who decides to take these crooked ego inflated men on. He apparently hated the term method acting, but he brought it out in full force and brought something out in him that graced the screen. People try to reproduce that same style, dedication and pure raw talent today.

A gripping story that is more engaging to the viewer due to the strong performances. On The Waterfront in a classic in all the sense. Two men sitting the backseat of a taxi talking, is such a memorable scene, such an emotional scene and scene that is still quoted today. Bravo to everyone involved in making this film.

I would advise people, specifically the young ones of this generation, to stop for a moment and simply watch this film. Put down the iPod, turn off the computer and watch what classic film is like. What a powerful performance is like, what a emotional gripping story is like. On The Waterfront has all these and more.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

I fell asleep less than ten minutes into Seven Samurai. Masterpiece my ass.

But the best part is at eleven minutes.

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's 1:00 AM, going to bed.

Hopefully if I get this new job, it will give me more time to post some reviews. I got a backlog here.

I currently wake up at 5:00AM, travel to work, get there are 6:50AM, start work at 7:00AM. Do mindless warehouse crap, in which it is hard to breath because of the fumes and thick air and dust and crap. I finish at 3:30PM and do not get home until 5:00PM. 5 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon? 12 hour days? Not good man.

[planet news]

Yeah man, I don't even know what to say about On The Waterfront. There're just so many iconic sequences, as if every scene, every conversation is iconic.

It's also one of those films that sticks to the story and the characters so strongly without letting fancy editing or camerawork take over. In that sense, I'd say the cinematography is flawless, but the editing is a little too safe for its own good. The story is about taking life by the reigns even after it seems like its given up on you or you on it, so maybe the formal drabness is fitting. I can't remember if the last shot is a dolly shot. I think it might be, in which case I think that represents how Brando's character broke out of his static, "last man" outlook.

It may not have been though.

[honeykid]

I fell asleep less than ten minutes into Seven Samurai. Masterpiece my ass.

As this is PN, I'm going to assume this is some kind of sarcasm I'm not familiar with. :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 126: September 3rd , 2010

Cry Freedom

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/cryfreedom.jpg?t=1287704208

The true story of the friendship that shook South Africa and awakened the world

There's always something about true stories that tend to end up on the boring side. Real life is pretty boring, even if the story is stylized for film. Cry Freedom has it's boring parts, but the overall film is good enough to leave me feeling like I watched a well done film. The cast were strong and Attenborough handles the story quite well, despite some flaws.

Washington is great as Steven Biko as is Kline as Donald Woods. I personally would have liked to have had the film been geared more towards Biko than Woods. I don't know if it's due to the story or the performance from Washington, but Biko interested me a lot more.

To get a sense of apartheid and history, one should watch this film. It's enough to get people thinking about topics and struggles. Attenborough is no stranger to films about real life people overcoming tremendous obstacles. Gandhi anyone? It doesn't help that the film is really long and suffers from uneven character development. The story follows the two men and their struggles to battle apartheid. The film spotlights how the issue garnered more attention because of the acts of these two brave men.

3

[mark f]

I agree with most of your comments and your rating. I may be imagining this, but you do seem to be one of the raters here who tend to rate films on the low-ish side. I'm not trying to imply that I'm an influence, but I like to think I am. :cool:

[planet news]

I think you get more and more discriminating as you watch more films. Just a theory.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I agree with most of your comments and your rating. I may be imagining this, but you do seem to be one of the raters here who tend to rate films on the low-ish side. I'm not trying to imply that I'm an influence, but I like to think I am. :cool:

So I'm assuming that's a good thing. :p

[mark f]

It is unless you tell me I'm constipated.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ahhh.....I get it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 127: September 4th , 2010

Julie & Julia

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/julie-julia-poster2_1245110258_640w.jpg?t=1287963147

Passion. Ambition. Butter. Do You Have What It Takes?

A light hearted comedy that is specifically targeted to the female audience and I'm sure they will appreciate and like this film. I found it to be, unfulfilling at the end. The two parallel story lines were Julia Child writing a cooking book and Julie blogging about cooking everything from that book.

Streep is bubbly and warm hearted as Julia. She highlights the film, I don't know if it was good enough to warrant acting nominations at the Oscars, but it was fun. Her story was the more interesting of the two and her chemistry with Tucci works. Amy Adams as Julie is a bit depressing. I found her story to be the weaker part of the film and while I like her as an actress, I found her disconnected here.

The film balances the two story lines well enough so the viewer doesn't get confused, but I suspect they will want to spend more time with Streep. Did this film get me in the cooking mood? Or even make me hungry? Not really. Is it suppose to? I find that when I see a film about a paradise vacation spot, I want to go there, or when people are stealing dreams and go from one dream to another...I want to do that. Julie & Julie might just not be a film for me. Objectively it was easy enough to watch, but by the end I found myself asking what was the point of this film?

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 128: September 5th , 2010

Machete

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/machete-poster-big.jpg?t=1287963386

Machete Don't Text.

Grindhouse was the most fun I had in the theatre in a long time and that experience I believe won't be matched. It had the right amount of everything and the entire audience was enthralled by it. It failed at the box office, which made it even more of a true Grindhouse film. Now we have Machete, a full length feature film based on one of the trailers that was attached to Grindhouse. Out of all the trailers, this one had the most potential to be an actual film, and here we are. Machete was a lot more fun in trailer form, then it is in feature form.

I had fun here, but the film is a lot less Grindhouse and a lot more political. It starts off with a great bang and has the audience set up for a bloody good time. It's violence was unrelenting. Then it starts to suffer from it's story line, it's lack of tongue in cheekiness and the length. The film still has great moments, but they are only scattered throughout a disjointed piece. Machete was perfect for the trailer, and only mediocre for it's film.

The film surprisingly has a strong cast. Danny Trejo is the title character and the story of the trailer is the exact story here. He is hired to do a job and is double crossed. He was hired by Lapidus, I'm sorry, Jeff Fahey, to assassinate Robert DeNiro. We later find out that it was all an attempt to get more sympathy votes for him when he survives the assassination and the police start looking for Machete. There are subplots about immigration that really take over the story and are in your face with it's content. Jessica Alba is the Immigration Officer, she still is a bad actress, even in a piece like this. Michelle Rodriguez is apart of a resistance called The Network, who go after DeNiro, the Senator.

Other parts of the cast are played by horror make-up legend Tom Savini, Robert Rodriguez long time pal Cheech Marin, Don Johnson, Lindsay Lohan who seems to be playing herself and Steven Freakin Seagal. With a cast like this you would expect it to be really campy and B style, but it takes itself way to seriously at moments and it loses it's sights on things. Seagal could have been great in this piece, but instead he sits around and talks the whole time until a fight at the end, which clearly shows his age and the fact that he has let himself go. The standouts are Don Johnson and Jeff Fahey, they play their evil roles perfectly and fit right into this film. DeNiro is a bit off here, he isn't his usual self and he seems out of place at times. I didn't know if he was trying to hard or was phoning it in.

The film is violent and bloody. People loose limbs, heads and what not. It's clearly over the top and it plays on that very well. The rest of the time you're waiting for it to get to the good parts. Danny Trejo is great, but he is no leading man. He should stick to character pieces, although I am glad he finally got his spotlight. He is one scary and ugly looking guy, who always seems to get the ladies *cue porn music*.

Machete is something that could have been great fun, but it leaves most of the fun in 2007 with Grindhouse. A heavy political theme drowns it out too much and it actually tries to give the viewers a message instead of simply being a low grade trashy film. I had more fun with Piranha 3D than Machete, which is a surprise.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 129: September 6th , 2010

Papillon

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/papillon_ver3.jpg?t=1287963582

Hey you bastards!!! I'm still here.

Despite the films agonizing length, I really dug Papillon. It's yet another classic and one of the best 'escape' films I've seen. Steve McQueen needs no introduction, the man is a he-man. Classic actor and great in the role of Henri 'Papillon' Charriere and his numerous escape attempts. Regular character actor Dustin Hoffman plays Louis Dega. Dega is a little slow, but befriends Henri and Hoffman has yet another memorable performance under his belt. I don't give this guy enough credit.

I watched this film on the request of a friend and I'm glad I did. It's a film about the struggle of survival. McQueen teams with director Franklin J. Schaffner of Patton and Planet of the Apes fame. It's a shame that this film doesn't get enough recognition. So it's safe to say that it's underrated.

The film is heavy and needed some comic relief and Hoffman does a good job of providing enough of that to make the subject matter a tad lighter at times. I highly recommend Papillon for those looking for a great film that is acted superbly by people who show dedication to their craft. McQueen gives us an honest look at his physicality and what prison does to it after years and years. Recommended!!!

4

[mark f]

I also love Jerry Goldsmith's score for Papillon, but he and Schaffner were a good team since I also love his scores to Planet of the Apes and Patton.
The last minute or so of this piece is my fave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfUVI5G8noU

[planet news]

I started watching this a few years ago at a hotel or something. Was loving it and then had to stop for some reason. Thanks for reminding me of this one guys. Gotta love the escape genre.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 130: September 7th , 2010

Rudy

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rudy-movie-poster.jpg?t=1288051983

When people say dreams don't come true...tell them about Rudy

One of Mark F's suggestions from the last time, getting around to it this time. One of many which I hope to get to. Of course this isn't my first time watching it, but it has been a while since I have. Revisiting this story was a nice way to spend the afternoon.

Rudy is an inspirational story. It shows how dedication, hard work and guts will take you places. Rudy makes me look like a lazy slob, hell anyone really does. He saw a goal that he wanted to accomplish and didn't stop trying till he achieved it. What were his dreams? To play for the college football team Norte Dame of course.

Rudy is a film that gives you goosebumps. The climactic challenge of him playing football and the cheers of Rudy throughout the crowd are enough to get the hair on my arm to stand up. Seeing the power of joy and happiness if people's hearts and on their wide smiled faces gets to me, a small tear here and there.

Sean Astin delivers his best performance to date, sorry Sam Wise, it really is. His heart is on his sleeve. The supporting cast all work well together, Jon Favreau, Charles S. Dutton and Ned Beatty shine. Rudy is probably one of, if not the, best football film. Every other one goes down the same formulaic route that it's boring. No matter how well the football scenes are filmed, you need a good story. Rudy as all of this and more.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 131: September 8th , 2010

The Wizard of Oz

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/wizard-of-oz-DVDcover.jpg?t=1288054831

Does this film really need an introduction?

The Wizard of Oz really is a classic film. It defines classic for me. A film from the late 30's with classically song tunes that people are still singing today? A story so well that people are still influenced by it today? (Lost anyone?) A cinematic and deliciously evil villain hell bent on evil things? An adventure across a fantasy filled land? A heroine and her friends overcoming great triumph? A cute little dog? The Wizard of OZ has it all.

Looking for a film that has been seen by virtually everyone? I might take a chance and point to this one. Sure people have seen films like Citizen Kane, the Godfather and Star Wars, but those are film buffs. My girlfriend hasn't seen any of those. The Wizard of Oz is something like an initiation to film for little kids. I watched it a dozen times when I was younger. Still holds true today. Hell, I even watched it while playing Dark Side of the Moon once.

Is it all a dream? The original mind screw of a film...without ever feeling like one. Weird isn't it? The film is bright, vibrant and beautiful. The costumes are authentic and stellar. Watching this on blu-ray and seeing the tiny fibers on the fabric costumes made me smile. The Scarecrow, Tin-Man and Cowardly Lion. All hilarious, and heartfelt. My personal favourite has always been the Tin Man.

The Wizard of Oz is a true classic film. Throw it in a time capsule and let future generations see it.

4

[mark f]

I especially love Frank Morgan, who plays the "fake" Professor Marvel, the Gatekeeper, the Carriage Driver, the Doorman and the "fake" Wizard of Oz. The F/X are awesome - the tornado, the flying witch, the flying monkeys, the scenes in the Wizard's Hall ("Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.") I want to mention again how witty the songs and dialogue are.

[Iroquois]

This came on TCM the other night. I started watching it, got about 45 minutes through before getting too distracted by other stuff to keep going. The whole time I kept thinking about which bits synchronised with the songs from The Dark Side of the Moon.

[planet news]

Brain Damaged + Scarecrow Entrance = Chills

[nebbit]

Some great films there Sussy :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 132: September 9th , 2010

Dreamcatcher

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/dreamcatcher.jpg?t=1288566764

Alien Rectum Invasion!!!!


Why the hell did I think this was a supernatural horror flick? I don't know how that got in my head but when I finally decided to sit down and watch Dreamcatcher, I asked myself if it was really as bad as people say it is. Yes and no. It's not complete garbage, but it is a poorly done flick. Aspects of it are way too laughable for me to comprehend.

First we get the four characters who are friends and can read minds. What? Then I find out that there is an alien invasion. Double what? Are we going to see these guys battle aliens with their awesome powers? Nope. Instead we get Jason Lee do the a complete idiotic action that made me want to slit my wrists. Who in their right mind would reach for a tooth pick that has fallen on the ground of a bathroom. I'm not done yet...a bathroom that has the floors covered in blood. I'm still not done yet...a bathroom that has the floors covered in blood because an alien creature has escaped out of a strange man's rectum and is now trapped inside a toilet that Lee is sitting on so the creature won't escape. Yup, let me go and risk letting it out, as well as put this stupid piece of wood in my mouth because why? My character likes toothpicks? It gets him by? I don't care if it landed on a piece of tile with no blood. There are some serious health issues there.

With all that out of the way we are treated to Thomas Jane and a character that no one cares about. The more interesting friend gets eaten. The tormented friend has a body snatcher vibe going on and of course Lee has his damn toothpicks. This film then decides to go all action on us and have a helicopter vs Tom Sizemore scene. Everyone looses on that one. Who flies the helicopter? Morgan Freeman, that's who. In a role that is laughable.

The film should have been more like The Thing. That is something that I could have enjoyed. Instead it goes on this weird tangents that end up nowhere. The special effects are cringe worthy as well.

I cannot recommend this film, it's bad, really bad. Yet, as I said before...not the worse thing ever made.

1.5

[ash_is_the_gal]

Hell, I even watched it while playing Dark Side of the Moon once.

ha, awesome. i need to do that again.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 133: September 10th , 2010

Last Action Hero

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/lastaction.jpg?t=1289151512

Did you make a movie mistake? You forgot to reload the damn gun.

I actually dig this film. It parodies the action genre very well for the 80's and has Schwarzenegger having a good time blending both action and comedy, two genres he actually does well in. I think people had a hard time grasping what kind of film it was suppose to be because it bombed at the Box Office.

When watching the film I ask myself, why the hell doesn't the villain just bring back Godzilla, Freddy Krueger, or Darth Vader? He has an unlimited amount of villain he can bring the the real world in order to wreck havoc and get rid of Slater. Yet who does he bring back? Somebody that Slater has already defeated. You could argue that he went the sentimental route because Ripper killed his son, but I thought this villain was smart?

The film plays up on the ridiculousness of action films. Right down to the one liners. Want to be a farmer? ..Well here's a couple of achers! kicks guy in the testicles. The film is an ideal way to spend 90 some odd minutes. It never once takes itself seriously and it pokes fun at itself constantly. Hell, it even has Jean Claude Van Damme. You can't go wrong when he's in a film right?

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 134: September 11th , 2010

Run Fatboy Run

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/run-fat-boy-run0.jpg?t=1289151991

Love. Commitment. Responsibility. There's nothing he can't run away from.

A decent rom-com disguised as a full fledged comedy. Simon Pegg runs out on his bride to be on their wedding day. Why? He was a coward, she was pregnant and now that she is with someone else that makes him look like trash, we discovers that he is finally the man that she wanted him to be. How does he prove this? He runs in a marathon.

Schwimmer, aka Ross from Friends directs this film. He has experience, he directed a couple episodes from Friends and now his big feature film with a big comedic star. The film is sweet and has it's moments, but never fully crosses that line of hilarity. The film is too sweet for that.

Pegg does his whole Rocky montage, training to run in the race. He gets a huge blister on his foot and his coach has to pop it. This scene is the gross out bit from the film. Ew factor is up high on that one. His coach and best friend is Dylan Moran, a laid back gambler with debts. What gambler doesn't have debts? He is more 'cool' than his character in Shaun of the Dead and less annoying.

The goal for Pegg is to win back the love of his ex bride to be, Thandie Newton. Problem is she is with Hank Azaria. He's a prick behind her back, but a real gentlemen when she is around. The perfect person to hate. Pegg must muster the courage to overcome obstacles that are thrown in front of him. Definitely a Rocky theme is here.

Run Fatboy run is a funny film that has more heart than laughs. Everything works but it doesn't try to be more than it sets out to do. It's a shame because the laughs could have been a lot more.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 135: September 12th , 2010

The Phantom

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the_phantom_new_movie_poster.jpg?t=1289153416

The Ghost Who Walks. The Man Who Cannot Die.

I watched this because I really liked it as a kid. I wanted to see how well it would hold up now that I was older, knowing full well that it wouldn't. Much to my surprise it didn't suck as much as I expected. The problem is that the Billy Zane, although awesome, is not really a comic book action star. I don't know how well Bruce Campbell would have done in the role, or what kind of career he would have had after, but it seems the role was too much for those who were suppose to throw on the purple spandex.

This film did not do well, in my opinion, because no one knew who the character was. He was never a huge success. Zane does well, but again the role was too much for him. He dedicated a lot to it too. He worked out and was huge, he wore the suit well. I like him enough to give him a pass here, despite not being a good candidate for the role. The rest of the cast feels shorthanded too. This is suppose to be a big comic book film, yet we are given Kristy Swanson (yup, Buffy) as the love interest to Zane and Treat Williams as the villain. Each person should have exaggerated their roles, yet they were restricted.

The Phantom should and needs to be remade today. This should have been the vehicle to launch Billy Zane as the next movie star. It didn't. He has to settle for being a cult actor. Heck, Titanic didn't even help raise his star status. Other than Titanic, people remember him from a cameo in Zoolander, as himself. I can appreciate this film for what it tried to do, but it isn't good enough for me to recommend to people at home.

At least it was better than The Shadow.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 136: September 13th , 2010

Heavy Metal

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/heavy-metal-poster.jpg?t=1289154215

A Step Beyond Science Fiction.

Another film recommend last time around. Heavy Metal is an animated anthology of stories wrapped in a simple package. I remember seeing my dad had a copy of this on VHS when I was younger. I wanted to watch it because it looked bad ass. I mean, just look at that cover.

I had no real idea what I was in for. All I knew was that it was 'adult' and my dad wouldn't let me watch it. I did anyways, and I saw cartoon boobies. I was excited. :D

Watching it again years and years later, the animation look archaic, yet of it's time. I still dig it. The music is much like the title and adds to the awesomeness that is the Heavy Metal experience.

For the voice actors, it's full of SCTV members, for whatever reason. The only thing I can come up with is both were Canadian productions. They are alright, nothing too noteworthy to talk about.

I liked every story line, some more than others. The futuristic New York with the taxi cab driver always had a special place in my heart. It could be because it was the segment with the boobies, but watching it again, I just dig the whole atmosphere of that segment. Heavy Metal is something I would look forward to watching again, even the remake that is coming down the pipeline. It will be nice to see what they did with it in today's world.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 137: September 14th , 2010

After-Life

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/after-life-movie-image-5.jpg?t=1289190909

Life is the symptom. Death is the cure.

Liam Neeson plays a mortician who can talk to the dead. Christina Ricci recently gets into a car accident and dies. She lies on the table about to be "prepped" for her funeral when she wakes up. Neeson claims she is dead and that he can talk to the dead to help them with going to the after life. She believes she is still alive. What do you think? Do you even care?

Well the film apparently leaves us clues as to the real answer (as the director says) but then it gives clues to the opposite as well. I thought it was one way, then looking up the special features and the director herself telling me it was the other made me look at the film differently. I don't know if it is a success or a failure.

After-Life is a film that has next to no suspense, thrills or chills. Ricci thinks she is still alive and tries to escape the funeral parlor, yet Neeson makes sure she doesn't. Yet none of this is suspenseful. Instead the film decides to have Ricci lie on the cold table for most of the film and half that time she is naked. When are we suppose to have the debate of is she alive or not? It never really comes up. The ending gives us no answers to the questions we have and instead of being thought provoking, it irritates.

Neeson is very meticulous, everything has to be done a certain way. Think of his character in Taken, minus the bas-ass bits. Ricci pretends to be dead half the film and her acting was the same. She never really stood out to me and always came off as boring. She lived up to that in this film as well. Justin Long is her boyfriend who was about to propose to her when she dies, or doesn't die...whatever. He gives the most emotional performance, tears here and there, times of outrage, so much that he even hits a kid.

The film is mostly just shots of people talking and does nothing particularly special. It tries once with a bizarre scene when Ricci goes into some kind of hell/blackness? Yet it is uninspiring, it could have been the point in the film where we are taken to something special and the filmmakers could have been really creative with the 'afterlife'. They failed at that.

This film is something that I wouldn't recommend to people other than those who are really interested. The bare bones of it, the film is nothing special and kind of boring.

2

[Iroquois]

Phantom remake, you say? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1438437/)

[TheUsualSuspect]

That's no remake.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 138: September 15th , 2010

Blade

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/blade.jpg?t=1290324306

The power of an immortal. The soul of a human. The heart of a hero.

This film gets flak, but for what? It's a really good comic book adaptation. It's a really good vampire flick and it's also a really good action film. Snipes fills the shoes of the Daywalker perfectly and the opening sequences is quite impressive. I enjoy this film immensely, despite the flaws.

Blade is half human half vampire. He has all their strengths and none of their weaknesses. This means he can walk in daylight, hence the vampires calling him Daywalker. He is taken in as a kid by Whistler, played by Kristofferson. He trains him to hunt and kill vampires. After a raid on an underground vampire club, Blade leaves one vamp to burn. The cops get there in time to put him out before he becomes extra crispy. This vamp lives and attacks a doctor at a hospital, Karen. She gets bit and Blade takes it upon himself to make sure she lives...she reminded him of his mother.

Blade boasts one memorable villain, Deacon Frost. Stephen Dorff, having the most fun he's probably ever had in a role, makes him suave and feared. Frost is a hotheaded vampire who wants nothing but destruction and he will awaken old demonic forces to do so. Of course, Blade must stop him. Incorporating martial arts, a Snipes action film staple, shoot outs, sword fights, and gallons of blood, Blade will no doubt entertain.

When you think of Snipes, the role that most likely comes to mind is Blade. Norrington crafted a great film that started a trilogy. Sad to see he had problems with his next film, LXG. While I really dig the second film, this one will always remain the best of the three for me.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 139: September 16th , 2010

Blade II

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/blade2-poster-style-a1.jpg?t=1290324371

Know The Mark.

Blade II gets some marks docked off from me for trying to bring Whistler back. I really liked the character but bringing him back took away all the emotional punches from the first film. Not only that, but it seems that he is brought back with ease. Another mark is docked off from me due to a few issues of really spotty CGI. If you've seen the film you probably know what I'm talking about. Hell, Del Toro even mentioned this on the commentary. There are a few instances where the characters are CGI renders of themselves, only they are overtly cartoony and it pulls you out of the action sequence.

That aside, Blade II is a welcomed addition to the series and takes what was good about the first film and improves on it. We have more Blade, more vampires, more villains, more characters to love or hate and great action sequences. The story revolves around a mutated breed of vampires. These new breed feeds on both vampires and humans and neither garlic or silver can kill them. The vampires team up with Blade to get rid of them.

Del Toro uses slick blues for daylight and harsh yellows for night. Interesting to sort of switch the two colours for the sequences, they work. The action sequences are bigger and better. The story has the viewer always paying attention, can Blade really trust his new allies? Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Or my enemy? That is asked in the film and it is something to ponder.

Ron Perlman steals the scenes he is in. He detests Blade and lets him know every chance he gets. Scud, another new character, played by Norman Reedus, is Blade's new buddy. He works on the gadgets, making new things, high tech. Del Toro would later in his career revisit the comic book world with a character he holds dear to his heart, Hellboy, starring Perlman, but for me, this is his better comic book film.

3.5

[Gunny]

The Blade movies were lame. Wasn't a fan.

Heavy Metal was great.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BdCM8w7XKQ0/0.jpg

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 140: September 17th , 2010

Blade Trinity

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/blade_trinity_ver2.jpg?t=1290325019

Third time's a charm?

What could have been a great trilogy, ends on a sour note. Blade Trinity is too mainstream for its own good. Blade takes a back seat to new characters that do not hold a candle to him, new villains that make me laugh more than fear and poor product placement that takes you out of the experience.

Blade Trinity is directed by the writer, David.S Goyer. There is the first mistake. Say what you want about his writing (good or bad) the man was the wrong choice for director. Just because you know the character and told the story does not mean you should direct it. With very limited experience, he had a franchise on his hands, and he destroyed it. Not terribly mind you, but enough to make me upset with the final entry.

Blade has defeated Frost, Nomack (the new breed of vampires) and now what? Well, let's get the old guy back in the ring, the original, the one that started it all. Dracula. Let's not make him scary though, let's get the guy from Prison Break to be him, he can be a model instead of a vampire. That's the impression that is given with this chracter. Dracula is never scary, even in his GRR face.

Tripple H is another vampire villain, complete with wrestling moves. Boring, he is no Rock. Two new good guys are Ryan Reynolds and Jessica Biel, both pretty people showing their ass kicking abilities. While both do have that ass kicking ability, they do not belong in this film. These characters and the rest of the gang, take way too much time away from the one character that people want to see, Blade. No one wants to see a bunch of kids with tech toys running around killing vampires while listening to their latest song on their iPod. They reference the iPod, yuck.

Reynolds is the comic relief, some bits are funny, others aren't. This character was just misused. That's the issue here. The writing isn't on par with the originals. If you think the writing in the first two weren't great, then imagine this one. The stakes do not feel as high, or does the threat feel that threatening. Blade Trinity is a failure in my eyes.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 141: September 18th , 2010

The Town

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the-town_300.jpg?t=1284867529

Look at my accent ma!

A bank robbery goes a little different than planned when one of the robbers takes a hostage. Doug (Affleck) has to duty to check up on the hostage after she is let go, to see if she knows anything about the crew. Surprise, they start dating. Can he continue his life of robbing banks and have a love life? Will his crew accept that he is with her? Will she ever find out? This is The Town.

Gone Baby Gone was his first directorial effort set in the city of Boston, The Town is his second. Ben obviously loves the city and if he keeps making films like these two, I'll be happy with some more Boston. I'm not going to preach about which film is better, their both different. Gone Baby Gone has more of an emotional punch with it's climax and tough decisions. The Town doesn't reach those heights, but it's a well made tense action thriller with a bit of a romance thrown in.

This time Affleck is in front of the camera as well. He seems to have left his pretty boy blockbuster image behind him. I'm thankful, I can only take so many Armageddons or Pearl Harbors. He's matured as an actor, this is evident by his roles as of late. State of Play and Hollywoodland are two examples. Of course he's had some fun films in between, but he's probably the best thing about those. Extract anyone?

For The Town he has assembled quite the cast. Jeremy Renner, who is hot off of The Hurt Locker plays his buddy with an attitude who won't think twice about pulling the trigger if you're in his way. Mad Men's Jon Hamm who is the FBI agent on their trail, his partner is Man in Black actor Titus Welliver, who was also in Gone Baby Gone. I wouldn't mind seeing more of him in films and if he's Affleck's good luck charm, all the better. Blake Lively has a small role and she does skanky a little too well. She has a thing for Affleck's character and she has a daughter, but he's obviously fallen for someone else. Rebecca Hall, who has the hard role of playing the woman who is dating her abductor. Things don't look too well for this relationship.

The Town shows Affleck's ability at directing action sequences. Gone Baby Gone wasn't full of gunfights and car chases, but The Town is. There are three separate heists in the film, the opening, the middle section and the climactic ending. All three are different from each other, one is in a bank, the other a truck and finally a baseball stadium. Each heist was exciting to watch and gave you those Heat moments. It's obviously the Heat was influential in the making of this film. It seems all movies that have robberies in them look to Heat.

Ben Affleck had a hand in writing the film, he of course won an Oscar with Matt Damon for writing Good Will Hunting. It appears he's found his footing once again and hopefully the allure of the blockbuster won't claim him once more. The Town is a successful film made for adults. It's slick, well acted and has enough thrilling moments to keep those who seek it entertained. The film centres mostly on Affleck and his new love and the heist bits are second fodder. Renner is the only one who gets some spotlight from the crew, the other two are simply background faces. The Town does it's job as a movie and Ben Affleck has found himself a new career.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Finally got some free time to catch up. Hope to have the month of Sept down by this week.

[nebbit]

Not a fan of blade but thanks for the reviews :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 142: September 19th , 2010

Do The Right Thing

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/do_the_right_thing.jpg?t=1290482980

It's the hottest day of the summer. You can do nothing, you can do something, or you can...

Do The Right Thing is required viewing in film schools, at least where I went and everyone else I know that went to different film schools. Why? Because it's just that damn good.

Do The Right Thing boasts a cast that is almost intimidating. Ossie Davis, Danny Aiello, Ruby Dee, Bill Nunn, John Turturro, and Sam the man Jackson. Everyone of these characters are going on about their lives and the film feels as if we are just dropping by for a day, the hottest day of the year that is, which is evident by the vibrant use of colours Lee uses.

The one thing that I say about this film is that is makes you feel something. How many films can say that? You can go see a movie, think it's good or bad, but for a film to make you feel something is, in my opinion, an accomplishment. Say what you want about his films today, but Do The Right Thing is his best film and one of the best I've seen. It's pure New York and Lee gives us a great world and numerous great characters that populate it. Every single one has their own little stories, from the Korean grocer to the three dude sitting on the sidewalk just talking jive (yes, that was an Airplane reference).

The famous race rant scene is my favourite part of the film and no matter how you look at things, you can't pin point the thing that ultimately leads us to the climactic finale. Everything that happens happens as a part of another. When I first saw this film I was full of anger at the events on the screen, well done Mr. Lee.

My little complaint comes with Spike Lee casting himself in the film. He is without a doubt, the weakest link here. His acting is just awkward and doesn't seem the flow with the rest of the cast, but then again, he has showered himself with a great cast. Even if he was good, he would still be in the shadows of the cast around him.

4

[nebbit]

:love: this movie :yup: nice review, Thanks :)

[Yoda]

Really impressed that you're still keeping up with this. I'm gonna have to sit down soon and tag a lot of these. I think I've gotten most of them, but there's probably a few older ones I missed, along with all the newer ones! Awesome job man.

[Gunny]

I hate Spike Lee. He's only had one good movie which was Inside Man. All his other films are garbage.

[genesis_pig]

I hate Spike Lee. He's only had one good movie which was Inside Man. All his other films are garbage.

I don't care for him either..
But Inside Man is the most mainstream movie he has done. I don't think that's the only good movie of his entire career.

He is just not your Spielberg or Michael Bay.. but he is still good.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 143: September 20th , 2010

Dark Country

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/dark-country-poster.jpg?t=1290570078

At the End of the Road... The Nightmare Begins.

A newly married couple hits the road and drives through the desert from Las Vegas when they encounter a person who was just in an accident. They take him and try to find some help, but they get more than they bargained for and all hell breaks loose.

I was intrigued by this film from the trailer, not because of the story or the actors, but it was the visual flare that grabbed me. It was a film noir with a twilight zone twist and that was exactly what the film gives you. Dark Country is the directorial debut of Thomas Jane and with Dark Country he shows that he has some interesting concepts and talent to back it up, yet still needs time to hone those skills. Dark Country, while showcasing some impressive scenes, comes off as slightly amateurish at times.

The most evident is the green screen. Now, Jane has obviously chosen to make it noticeable that when they are in the car, that the scenery in the background was stylized to make it feel like a comic book. It works, but the problem lies in the production values that are evident in the cracks. Bits of the green screen are visible through our lead female characters hair and around their faces. This takes you out of the film and you realize that you're watching a film.

The second would be the audio. While Jane pays a lot of attention to the detail of the visuals, he seems to have let the audio slide a little bit. If a film has bad visuals, the audience can forgive you as long as the sound is good. If a film has bad audio, you are screwed. While the film doesn't have horrible audio, there are times that it feels like it was put together in a day. ADR is very evident and jolting.

I give the film some credit for the intrigue. I immediately wanted to listen to the audio commentary from Jane to see what his agenda was. I got some of the film, while other parts of it were lost on me. The film is without a doubt a Twilight Zone entry aided by the film noir and graphic novel aspects that Jane added. It's a genre piece that has a specific market. Jane knows what he is doing and comes off extremely prepared and knowledgeable. I just wish he would have taken a bit more time with this one and improved those little imperfections.

It's funny, during the film there were parts where I asked myself if Jane was trying to make a 3D film. Reading up on the film, much to my surprise it apparently was suppose to be a 3D film. Not only that, but Jane is apparently not happy with the final product. I can see his frustration because there is a lot here that could be good. Instead it feels as if it's an exercise. A project to see if Jane could actually direct.

Dark Country is a beautiful looking film that has a few problems, yet those few problems are jarring enough to make you upset with the final product.

3

[alx1992]

What is this thread about? I don't get it at all

[Yoda]

Uh, try reading the first post. Does a pretty good job of explaining it, though it's kind of self-explanatory if you ask me: he's posting a review for each day of the year (starting in May). That's it.

[genesis_pig]

What is this thread about? I don't get it at all

This thread is actually about the song "One Movie A Day Remix" by The Usual Suspect.
The song is about movies & how the lead character lives through them each day remixing them in the process to suit his way of life.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 144: September 21st , 2010

The Slammin' Salmon

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/slammin-salmon-poster.jpg?t=1290667347

Bring a bib, it's gonna get messy.

I am not afraid to admit that I am a Broken Lizard fan. I dug Super Troopers , but it was Club Dread that made me a fan of the group. A perfect blend of horror and comedy. Vastly underrated, even by Broken Lizard fans. It makes me appreciate the film that much more, it's like the dark horse of the filmography. Beerfest was their next film and again, they scored high in my books. so my excitement rose when I heard there was another Broken Lizard film coming out, The Slammin' Salmon.

When the owner of a restaurant owes a Yakuza crime lord $20,000, he decides to hold a competition with the staff. The one who brings in the most money will win a prize. There was something off about this film from the get go, I couldn't put my finger on it until the credits started rolling. Jay Chandrasekhar the director of previous Broken Lizard entries was not the director. Kevin Heffernan was behind the camera. The film isn't poorly directed, just very basic. With Club Dread and Beerfest Chandrasekhar was use to being in the directing chair and would get a little bit more creative with the camera. Heffernan seems a bit timid.

The second would be the the film felt familiar. It could be that it's basically another swing at the dinning experience, one which we had earlier with Waiting. The difference being that this is an upscale restaurant, but the jokes, which we have seen before are still there. Some fall flat, others are just right up the groups alley. They also implore the use of twin characters, which we saw in Beerfest.

The film stars the usual boys, all doing a great job of course. They have their sense of timing and comedy down pat. Some people don't get or enjoy their comedic nature, but I do. The supporting players are April Bowlby, a waitress who tries to score tips based on her looks and Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother) as a waitress who also is trying to become a doctor. Both are great and fit nicely into the film with the boys. The stand out character is without a doubt Michael Clarke Duncan. He has the best lines, the best mannerism and has the most fun with the character.

While it is the weakest of the Broken Lizard films (not including Puddle Cruiser) it is still a decent entry. They have yet to disappoint me and if you are a fan of these guys, this film will make you laugh.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 145: September 22nd , 2010

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Dr--Strangelove-classic-movies-72769_800_1280.jpg?t=1290668321

Alien hand syndrome.

I didn't find this film to be that funny, but I did like it enough to warrant it a decent rating. I found the film to be of it's time. Kubrick without a doubt has films that are polarizing and despite this being a comedy, it's right up there with his other entries.

First things first, Peter Sellers, is remarkable here. He did in fact make me laugh. I had the most fun with this film when he was on the screen. George C. Scott helps with the laughter as well. I found him to be just as good as Sellers, but of course Sellers had the multiple roles going for him.

Maybe it's because political comedy isn't my thing, but I don't see how people can say this is one of the funniest films ever. I say it's because of age disconnect. I'm simply torn on the film, some of it was great great stuff, while other bits bored me horribly. Everything with the General made me yawn. Yet, everything in the war room is solid gold.

Leave it to Kubrick to give you a film like this.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm waiting for Mark F to make a comment about how on earth I could possibly give The Slammin' Salmon and Dr. Strangelove the same rating.

[Gunny]

Wait. Did I see that right? The same rating for the Slammin Salmon and Dr. Strangelove?!?!?!

I need an explaination.

[honeykid]

The explaniation is that he likes them about the same. I'll agree it's odd, as almost anything is funnier than Dr. Strangelove, even the Broken Lizard guys.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 146: September 23rd , 2010

Friday The 13th

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/friday-13-poster-1.jpg?t=1290827761

Welcome to Crystal Lake

This is the recent remake that takes the first three Friday films and throws it into one. As far as the "big" three horror remakes, this one is my favourite. The other two are Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the very recent Nightmare on Elm Street. I thought the filmmakers took a more creative route and tried something different with the character of Jason, whereas the other two were high and dry remakes that made me squirm with disappointment too often.

So we start off where the first original film ends, Pamela Voorhees decapitated. We see a little kid, deformed, grab her head and head off into the woods. Flashforward 12 or so years. 5 twenty somethings hike in the woods, two of them planning on stealing a crop of weed that is out in the woods. Sliced and diced!

Flashforward a few weeks...again. We see another group of twenty somethings heading up to a cottage, an expensive one. One they travels they run into a guy looking for his missing sister, you guessed it. She was one of the people from the attack a few weeks earlier. Well, Jason shows up, kills more people and what not and we have the same formula that the original films had.

So where is this film different? Gone is Jason, the supernatural killer who can die multiple times and keep on coming. Jason has been grounded in reality, he lives off the land, he's a hunter. He has gotten a little smarter too, setting up traps for his victims, like bear traps and using other victims as bait for others. Smart guy. The same overbearing figure is there, we get a glimpse of him with his trademark sack with one eye hole, then he finds his famous hockey mask.

I applaud the film for making the characters do stupid things, yet making them not seem stupid themselves. Their actions are results of others. Why does the one guy go to the shed alone in the dark? Other than being drunk, the annoying guy who owns the cottage told him to, because he has to fetch some tools and fix a broken chair. No investigating some strange noises.

The film has drugs, sex that is accompanied with a lot of boobies and death. The kills range from his trademark machete, to hatchet, arrow, stabbing, etc. It's funny to me that I prefer the original Nightmare on Elm Street compared to the original Friday the 13th, yet here I prefer the Friday remake.

3

[honeykid]

Do you disagree that Halloween is one of the "big 3"? Or did you just forget? If there's a big three, then surely it's Halloween, Friday and NOES.

[nebbit]

You will get there :yup: keep them coming :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

No, I don't consider the Halloween remake part of the big 3. Rob Zombie did that on his own agenda, the big 3 would be part of Platinum Dunes.

[Brodinski]

Day 145: September 22nd , 2010

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

I didn't find this film to be that funny, but I did like it enough to warrant it a decent rating. I found the film to be of it's time. Kubrick without a doubt has films that are polarizing and despite this being a comedy, it's right up there with his other entries.

Maybe it's because political comedy isn't my thing, but I don't see how people can say this is one of the funniest films ever. Everything with the General made me yawn. Yet, everything in the war room is solid gold.

I didn't have too many laugh-out-loud moments either. Sterling Hayden's talk about how the communists poisoned the American water to infuse their commie ideas was the most hilarious bit for me. All of his conspiracy theories were very funny. Personally, I think Hayden's character was the funniest.

I also liked Slim Pickens a lot. His manner of speech and accent were superb. What I loved about Scott is how he kept saying that the US needed to attack the communists, especially near the ending when they have to start a war to avoid missing out on underground space to live in.

Surprisingly, I didn't find Peter Sellers to be all that. To me, the supporting roles were much funnier than his. His character of Mandrake mostly annoyed me and the President didn't do much for me either.

While I understand why many people think this is the funniest film of all time, I don't find it to be so myself. I definitely had some chuckles, smiled a bit and a few laugh-out-loud moments, but my overall appreciation of the film wasn't overly diminished by it. I certainly rate Dr. Strangelove highly as a comedy. I'd give it a solid 4+. To me, it falls just short of greatness.

[Iroquois]

Any mention of Strangelove's humour reminds me of this article (http://www.cracked.com/article_15033_cracked-insider-snob-classics.html) by Mike Nelson. The movie will probably never drop out of my top 100, but I can't deny Mike's comments on the film ring pretty true.

[Harry Lime]

this article (http://www.cracked.com/article_15033_cracked-insider-snob-classics.html) by Mike Nelson.

Cracked?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/ClayDavis.jpg

[Iroquois]

It's a guest article by Mike from MST3K, so it's more than cancelled out.

[mark f]

The thing I've always liked about Strangelove is that for all its ridiculous character names and many of the seemingly incongruous actions, the entire film is played straight. Even at the end when the Doctor himself seems to be undergoing a combo miracle cure and a reversion to Naziism, I can see it all actually being true. Let's say for a moment, as some have mentioned previously, that Dr. Strangelove isn't a comedy at all. What rating would you give it then? It has documentaryish realism in the attack on Burpelson Air Force Base. It has great suspense inside the bomber as the Soviet missile hones in on them. It has an incredible set recreating the "War Room" and also Major Kong's plane. It also has a set of solid, very personalized performances. I believe the fact that the visual presentation of the film is so realistic that it often lulls viewers into thinking that they are watching something serious and not funny at all. Then again, the intent of the film is deadly serious; at the end, the world is gone.

http://www.cinemapolitica.org/files/cinemapolitica/pastfilms/strangelove.gif http://edsopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/strangelove21.jpg

So Strangelove also has to fight against the uphill battle of being a mostly realistic dark comedy, and many people don't get dark comedies unless somebody's being hit over the head with a shovel or being secretly buried. Something else I was just thinking about for the first time is that the film also has the air of being a British comedy. Even if Sellers and Peter Bull are the only principal British actors, there is the element of dry wit found in the film which many people cannot seem to comprehend as being funny. I realize that this subject hasn't been mentioned much here at MoFo, but I've come across many people who do not get the comedy of early Alec Guinness films, for example. I love British comedies (at least the good ones), so I don't have a problem with dry humor. I will admit that the film does take its time establishing the situation at the beginning. It is in the opening scenes where I find the movie most closely resembles the concept of being "boring" and not too funny, but keep your eyes and ears open because there are other things going on which are trying to set you up for the sucker punch ending.

http://www.movieriffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/drstrange.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskOC8/SlE633GEWCI/AAAAAAAAYX0/D2uqcLrZKmw/s400/PeterSellersSterlingHayden.jpg

I realize that nobody can make anybody change their mind about anything, but I just find Dr. Strangelove an almost miracle film which walks a tightrope where every ominous line or performance can be equally seen as humorous. If it sometimes seems insane, even in what some people mistake to be laborious boredom, that fits right into its intentions since the film perfectly depicts how the insanity of war can lead to the destruction of Humankind and probably all other life on the planet. Perhaps that overriding theme makes it seem better to those who truly love it, but then again it could just be what's in the flyer's survival kits or the fact that Group Captain Mandrake may have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company.

http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/pk_atomic2_ho.jpg http://content7.flixster.com/photo/10/05/83/10058325_gal.jpg

[sarah f]

Even just that picture with Slim Pickens on the bomb that says "NUCLEAR WARHEAD HANDLE WITH CARE" makes me laugh!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 147: September 24th , 2010

The Experiment

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/The-Experiment-2010.jpg?t=1291690764

Everyone has a breaking point.

This is an American direct to dvd remake of a German film called Das Experiment. With two Oscar winners in the lead roles and a good concept, I guess I expected a little more from this film. It was a well made polished film, but it lacked the emotion that was needed to really give it that powerful edge. It falls under the cliched saying of, watch the original instead.

A bunch of people answer an ad in the paper, an experiment that will last for two weeks. $1,000 dollars a day for a total of $14,000. No experience needed. The experiment? People are divided up into two groups. Prisoners and guards. They are locked away at a remote location, where they must follow 4 simple rules. If one of the rules is broken, the guards must take action. Cameras are everywhere, everyone is being watched and everyone has a breaking point.

Adrien Brody plays a hippie protester who was just laid off and if looking for some money. He answers the ad of course. Forrest Whitaker is a religious man who also needs some cash, he lives a life sheltered life with his mother. These two men form some sort of friendship through the auditioning process and both make it into the experiment. Obviously this so called friendship is tested because one is in position of power, while the other has his rights taken away.

The performances from the two leads are decent, Whitaker takes a special notice because he has a character that does a total 180. He gets off on the authoritative position he was given. His whole life he was a nobody, now that he has power, he abuses it. Whitaker plays the role well, he has the hint of crazy to him that makes it noticeable. Brody has the unfortunate task of getting the snot beaten out of him and humiliated at every opportunity. While he does a decent job, I never fully believed he met his breaking point.

The film was written and directed by Paul Scheuring, who has some prison experience, working on the hit show Prison Break. For a first time director, he seems to grasp the ins and outs. He has a good film here, but the imperfections are enough to ruin the overall experience. The problems that escalate in the film happen way too early. All these men are striving towards the same goal of $14,000. The lines are drawn too fast. All hell breaks loose to early. The experiment is suppose to last two weeks. Do we even make it past one?

The supporting characters aren't given enough screen time. Clifton Collins Jr. has a supporting role here. He has an interesting character that I wanted to learn more about, but he is always pushed off to the side and never explored. Some of the actions of the people in the film are questionable. I wondered why certain characters would follows others without question. The experiment itself isn't explored deep enough. The whole thing is about power and the abuse of it, what do people do? Do they do what is morally right, or what society deems morally right? If no one stops the experiment because of abuse, is it still okay to abuse people? These questions are just skimmed by on the surface, I wanted a bit more.

2.5

[mark f]

I don't know how in-depth to get into the original film, but I wholeheartedly recommend it. Have you watched that one yet or did I forget?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Yea, but it's not on this list.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 148: September 25th , 2010

The Passion of the Christ

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the_passion_of_the_christ_01.jpg?t=1291699879

By his wounds, we were healed.

Passion of the Christ is a grueling experience. I saw this in theatres and while I did not faint or find it extreme, there were points that had me closing my eyes. Mel Gibson goes a little bit over the top in these scenes, such as the eye pluck and the skin ripping, but the message he wanted to deliver is still clear. Christ suffered for our sins. I don't want to bring religious beliefs into this review, so I'll just steer clear of that stuff.

A lot of people complained that the film was too violent and had no meaning behind it. It was a film about his crucifixion, I don't really see what else people expected. Those knowing the story, knew what was going to happen. They might not have expected the amount of bloodshed that appeared, but the story is still there.

I was impressed that Gibson decided to have the film not be in english, instead he opted for subtitles. A film that was geared towards a specific audience, not in english? A big gamble, especially in 2004. Yet it paid off. The film felt more 'true' to the life of Jesus, not being in English. Going with a relatively unknown actor (at the time) for Jesus was also a smart idea.

Indeed a powerful film, with performances that ring true. Say what you want about Mel Gibson as a person, but the man is talented behind the camera. The troubles the film went through while filming are interesting. Caviezel getting struck by lightning, separating his shoulder and getting whipped. An AD was struck by lightning twice as well. Did God approve or disapprove of the film? ;)

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 150: September 26th , 2010

Repo-Man

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/RepoMan.jpg


Given to me by Iro to watch.

Repo Man is a cult film, whose status far exceeds the actual quality of the film. It left me less than thrilled with the end results. The bits of comedy are misplaced and don't really jive with the sci/fi (or lack there of) bits to it.

Harry Dean Stanton and The Might Duck Man (I swear to god, I was like EMILIO!!!!!) make the film more enjoyable than what it should have been. I'm a fan of 80's and this film no doubt screams that, but I just got bored by it. Which is a shame because normally I would like a film like this and I should have. I also couldn't get pass the stupid earring he wears at the beginning. It looks like it should weigh down his head.

The more I look back and think about the film, the more I like it. But I have to go with my initial gut reaction, which is more negative than positive.

I can't say I essentially got it, the film is out there in terms of plot and story. But it didn't really grab me at any point. Points for Iggy Pop and the theme song.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 151: September 27th , 2010

Suicide Kings

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/suicide.jpg?t=1291700821

Their plan was perfect... they weren't.

I dig this film. I can't really place my finger on the reason why. I just enjoy it, that's all. It tries a little bit too hard to be clever with the plotting and hip with the dialogue, but I adore it for that. The cast is impressive, you have Christopher Walken, doing his thing even though he is tied to a chair. Denis Leary, being a bad ass. Sean Patrick Flanery, Henry Thomas (E.T. kid), Jay Mohr, Jeremy Sisto, Brad Garrett and Johnny Galecki.

The film is a mystery, you're always questioning the characters, their actions and the final outcome. Is what is happening the truth? Or is there someone else behind everything, who is playing who? There is enough questions and mysteries in the film to keep me entertained and interested in what happens next.

This film was from 97, so while watching it you could tell they were trying to go for that Tarantino vibe that so many films tried to do. This is one of the better copy cats. The dialogue is snappy enough to keep the plot moving at a nice pace, there are moments of brevity that are nice. The ending is where the film will split the viewer. In favour of, or totally against. Surprisingly, I'm still on the fence.

I picked this film up many years ago in a 5 dollar Wal-Mart bin. Can't go wrong with that.

4

[honeykid]

I don't know what the timeline is in The Experiment, however, in the real experiment (which I think was carried out in the late 60's, but could've been 1970-72) I think they had to call it off after 5 days because things were too out of control. I've not seen either film, but if it seems unbelievable, it's either the fault of the director and editor or it's because, when actually done, people get out of control unbelievabley quickly.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 152: September 28th , 2010

Assassination of a high school president.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/assassin.jpg?t=1291784300

Forget it Bobby, it's high school.

Going into this film, I had no idea what it was about. So by the end of it, I was genuinely surprised by how good it actually is. It seems to have fallen to the way side of things as not many people even know about it, or care to watch it. It reminded me of the old school film noir movies, this time set within a high school. They even homage Chinatown with the highlighted line above. While that line might be a bit cheese, it's nice to know that it isn't afraid to show where it grabs it's influences from.

Despite the films best efforts to surprise me at the end, I found it rather obvious who did what form the get go. After watching so many films, you tend to pick a character as the "one who did it" early on to see if you are right. I was right. More than once. Yet, where the film failed to surprise me, it excelled at holding my attention and crafting a well written story. Bobby Funke is a journalist and after some S.A.T papers go missing, he is on the case. He suspects it was the class president and writes an article saying he did it. They open his locker, there they are. Yet he claims he was framed. Bobby is back to finding the truth before people find out he told a lie.

The actual story of the film is pretty basic, yet the film somehow manages to make it seem more important and epic than it really is. Each supporting character has their place and it's interesting to see Bobby go to each one for their own unique abilities and information. While watching this film I kept thinking to myself, this would work as a television series. Each season is a new case, the school is filled with quirky characters, etc. As a film, it works, but I wouldn't mind seeing it on the television either.

Bruce Willis does a marvelous job in the small role he has as the principal. He isn't afraid to demean the students with verbal abuse, or even physical. He's a stereotype of the proud American, whose backstory is that he served in the armed forces. Willis is always off and on with comedy. Here he is comedic gold, Cop Out he isn't. With the right material he is quite funny.

The cast is young, but they never annoy you. Reece Thompson has his break out role as the gumshoe who never seems to have things go his way. Mischa Barton plays the 'hot' girl in the school who takes an interest in Bobby. I was surprised that I didn't hate her in this film.

The film has some random nudity, which seems completely out of place here. It also showcases the absurdity of high school, takes the cliches and stretches them. I never went to a school like this, the question I am asking myself though...did I want to?

3

[nebbit]

Over half way :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

As long as I catch-up around the new year, I'll be satisfied.

[honeykid]

I've wanted to see this film since before its release. Still not managed to catch it. :( Good to see it reviewed, and liked, here.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 153: September 29th , 2010

Grown Ups

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Grown_Ups_4.jpg?t=1292127540

Missed Opportunity.

A group of friends get together for the funeral of their old basketball coach. They head to a cottage on a lake to remember the coach and be with their families. Not much else to say about the story than that.

It seems that the funniest parts of this film, all happened behind the scenes. Going into Grown Ups, I got the nostalgic feeling, old buddies from the SNL days and stand up comedy are doing a flick together. Should be funny, since you have all these comedy 'heavy weights' together in one film. Too bad they had the cameras rolling during the wrong time.

Grown Ups is chuckle funny, but should be gut busting funny. That's the problem with this film. It seems that the guys just seemed to be hanging out and having a good time. That's great and all, but we aren't apart of it. Sandler, without a doubt, decided he wanted to hang out with his friends and get paid to do it. Then one day they thought they should go to the water park and have even more fun while they get paid...and they did.

Another set back is that the film is kid friendly. You're taking funny man Chris Rock out of his element right away, and it showed. Kevin James, as funny as he is, will never replace Chris Farley. I still prefer the physical comedy of Farley over James. Schneider plays the weirdo of the group, that they like to pick on. He is stuck again as the sidekick, even in the this ensemble piece. David Spade plays his crude self and of course Sandler is playing the kid friendly version of himself.

Most of the stuff is improvised, they even keep all the scenes where they laugh at each other. It's all good an fun, but most of it isn't that funny. Spade walking out of a closet dreaming he did stuff with a short blonde, then moments later having the dog walk out, is not funny. The funny men have their families with them. Their wives, all of them out of their respect husband's league. Yes, even the grandma/wife. The kids, most of them are annoying (Sandler's kids) which I guess was the point, but even after they accepted the awesomness of playing outside, I still despised them.

The film has no real plot, as I mentioned, it's just the guys hanging out and having fun. You'll get a few laughs here and there, but every single one of these guys have been in something funnier.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 154: September 30th , 2010

Predators

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/predators_teaser_poster2.jpg?t=1292128114

So Close, Yet So Far.

A group of people are dropped into a planet as a part of a game. Kill or be killed. There's a small snag though, the other team are an alien race with advanced technology and a vagina mouth.

There was no chance that this film was going to be better, or even match the original. I did have my hopes for it to be better than the 2nd outing, and all the alien vs predator garbage that came after that. So in the end, I got what I wanted. Yet the film manages to fall short of it's own expectations.

Adrian Brody did try his best to be an Arnold fill in, sorry to say it didn't work. He tried to be tough by getting a deeper voice and getting the chance to rip off his top and show off his oh so sexy abs. Taking a page out of the original, which this film mentions, Brody runs around covered in mud and does what he can to try and be a bad ass.

The premise of the film is better than the final product. We have Predators, which we know are bad ass, then we have a team of highly trained and skillful people dropped on this planet. Each have their own specialty. So, that was cool in itself. Yet every death scene lacked spark, originality and the coolness that it should have had. The most interesting part of the film to me was equally the silliest. When a Predator and a Yakuzza member, have a so called "sword" fight.

For me the film fell apart with the introduction of Lawrence Fishburn. From then on, it was all downhill. I particularly didn't like how some characters suddenly changed at the end and out of nowhere a new subplot pops up. It was distracting and not true to the rest of the film. A predictable and poor ending hurt the film even more. Rodriguez should have directed instead of producing and maybe we could have had a more interesting film on our hands.

2.5

[nebbit]

I think I will give the last 2 a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 155: October 1st, 2010

Centurion

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/centurion_poster-535x792.jpg?t=1292306623


Fight or die.

A small group of Roman soldiers are left alive after an attack on their legion. They must survive the elements and an expert tracker coming after them. Behind enemy lines and fighting for the lives.

With Centurion, Neil Marshall has his biggest budget to date. The film is ambitious in style and tone. Marshall, who get a cult following after two excellent small horror films (Dog Soldiers and Descent) has gone on to bigger, but not really better things. Doomsday was a nice throwback to genre films (even though it didn't really know which one it wanted to be) and now Centurion, which has Marshall tipping his hat to Gladiator and Spartacus.

I consider myself a Marshall fan, which is why I even bothered to give this film a viewing. If his name weren't attached, I wouldn't have bothered. Marshall is apart of the Splat-Pack. The horror coined group for filmmakers like Rob Zombie and Eli Roth. It's no question as to why Marshall is apart of this group, every film of his has some body part ending up some place. It's funny to me that this film might be his most gruesome one yet and it isn't even horror.

The film's most gruesome moments are during the big attack on the romans. Arrows are shot into heads, arms, legs and necks are taken out like a hot knife through butter. I had a few moments where I was actually shocked at the carnage on the screen. One of the more gruesome period pieces. During the attack, the Picts (Scottish) take prisoner the General (Dominic West). The small group of survivors, including Michael Fassbender decide to try and get him back. They fail, but they did succeed in killing the lead Pict's son. He sends a group of people to go after them, thus we have a cat and mouse chase throughout the film.

It's suspenseful in places and aggravating in others. The lead tracker, is suppose to have excellent skills, where she is always on their tail, no matter what. Yet the filmmakers seem to forget this sometimes. She can sense them across the river in one scene, but not underneath her feet in another. These inconsistencies are bothersome. Yet it happens. The characters themselves aren't too memorable either. I couldn't really tell the survivors apart from one another and neither stood out of the crowd. These shortcomings in the script are what bring Centurion down. The most interesting character is killed off too early too.

Yet, Marshall still manages to deliver an entertaining film. It's not near the level of awesome that is Dog Soldiers, or even The Descent, but it does deliver what you would expect from this genre. There are moments where the film loses its sense of direction (such as a lover subplot) and there are even moments of predictability, but as a whole, the film delivers.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 156: October 2nd, 2010

The Social Network

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/The-Social-Network.jpg?t=1286080231

A Win For All Involved.

Mark Zuckerberg is dumped by his girlfriend in the opening scene and in a drunken rage he goes online and hacks into different websites to take student photos and create a site called FaceMash, where people pick which girl is hotter. This leads to some academic probation, but it catches the eyes of three other students who want to create a social networking site that would be exclusive to Harvard students. They tell Zuckerberg the idea and he joins the team. Unfortunately Zuckerberg shuts them off from communication and writes his own codes and brings in his best friend as CFO. Thus The Facebook is born. As the site gets more popular, Zuckerberg loses his connection with his best friend and ends up getting sued by him and the three students for millions of dollars.

When I first heard that there was going to be a movie based on Facebook, I rolled my eyes and asked why even bother. Then, to my surprise, I heard that David Fincher was set to direct. My interest perked up a little bit, after all the guy directs some stellar films. It wasn't until the trailers starting popping up did I really want to see this film. The accolades that it has been receiving added more anticipation. Now that I've seen the film, all I can say is bravo.

Fincher and soon to be nominated for best adapted screenplay Aaron Sorkin, have created a film that defines what this generation is all about. Facebook is such a cultural impact that some people can't live their lives without it. I have it open in another window as I'm writing this review right now. The film will undoubtably receive more award nominations than screenplay, I'm just curious to see if any of those are in the acting department because this cast is great.

Jesse Eisenberg, who people always claimed to be a Michael Cera rip off, commands the screen with his awkward and pseudo intelligent riffs in his speeding bullet laced monologues. The guy (Zuckerberg) is brilliant at code writing, but his social skills are clearly lacking. His best friend, Eduardo Saverin (soon to be Spiderman Andrew Garfield) is desperate to get into elite clubs and has his emotions close to the surface. Eventually they explode when he learns he's being shifted out of his CFO position. Garfield plays well opposite Eisenberg. To my surprise Justin Timberlake wasn't irritating. He plays egocentric Sean Parker and while I don't see any awards heading his way, he does help complete a well put together cast.

The story jumps between two timelines. The present, in which Zuckerberg is facing two lawsuits and the past, which we see the creation of facebook. Heaps of praise should be thrown on Fincher and Sorkin, they pulled off this structure perfectly. The film feels just like his previous efforts, dark and cold. Much like the depiction of Zuckerberg. I can't comment on how true the film depicts the events, but we all know he did get sued and the filmmakers stand by the truths they tell in this film. It's all heightened to be entertaining, but with Zuckerberg trying to steer clear, I see a lot of truth in this film.

The Social Network is one of the years best films. It's solid direction from Fincher, who knows what he wants from every aspect. Sorkin delivers a timeless story set in our age of the internet and facebook. Friendship, greed and loyalty are all called into question. The performance are strong across the board with such a young cast. Eisenberg standing out in the lead role of Zuckerberg. The score is phenomenal, Fincher knew what he wanted and he got it with Trent Reznor. His style of music perfectly matches the film with the technology it's bringing to the forefront.

I wouldn't call this the film of the decade, but it is good enough to be in the high ranks of Fincher's best work and one of the best works this year. For a film that is simply people talking, it feels natural and goes at a breakneck speed. I highly recommend The Social Network.

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 157: October 3rd, 2010

Crazy on the Outside.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Crazy-on-the-Outside-Poster.jpg?t=1292825105

Just Not Funny Enough.

After being released from prison, Tommy must cope with his family, his new job, his desire to follow in his father's footsteps and of course, not getting himself thrown back into prison.

This film has an impressive cast, first you have Tim Allen, whom I find funny. His sister is a compulsive liar, played by Sigourney Weaver. She is married to J.K. Simmons, who has a beef with Allen. They lie to the grandmother, saying Allen went to France for 3 years, instead of prison. He went to prison because his best friend is in some illegal shady business work, this is Ray Liotta. Allen also goes to find his old flame, the girl he loved before he went to prison, played by the funny Julie Bowen. She has a fiancee, played by Kelsey Grammer. Finally Jeanne Tripplehorn plays Allen's parole officer.

Those are the players, and even though all of them have had success in the past with their comedy chops, they all seem to be flat here. Bowen, in my opinion, as the funniest role as the girlfriend who wants to marry Grammer, while see Allen on the side. Allen himself seems too distracted here, this is most likely because he was directing this as well. He went for a more likable schmuck role than a funny one. Weaver, as the compulsive liar, steals every scene she is in. Every lie she comes up with his more outrageous than the next.

The problem with the film is that it was more kind hearted than funny. A lot of the story elements are cliched and predictable. Which takes the fun out of the film. One of the things I look forward to in comedies is the unexpected, this film throws nothing like that our way.

The film had potential, and it means well, but it leaves an unsatisfied taste in your mouth. A lot of the film is just mediocre and given the amount of talent behind this one, it falls short.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 158: October 4th, 2010

The Expendables.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/xpend.jpg?t=1292827675

The Expendables falls short on expectations.

A team of mercenaries head to an island to overthrow a dictator.

The entire plot of the film can be summed up in 12 words. Even less if I try. Merc overthrow dictator. There, only 3. I was somewhat excited to see The Expendables, Stallone having a throwback action film, with a cast that had jaws drop everywhere when it was announced. The sad part is, the film falls short in many areas and just meets expectations in others. For a film like this, I wanted to be engulfed in everything it had to offer, I wasn't.

The film stands out in the pile of films that hit theatres this year about a group of skilled guys with guns who have to kill people. The Losers, The A-Team and most recently RED. The difference is that each one of those was based on something prior. Be it a graphic novel or TV show, and they had a bit of revenge thrown in. The Expendables is simply about guys kicking ass. I appreciate Stallone for doing what he set out to do. He made a guy flick, with muscles, guns, knives, one liners and explosions. Yet, the film was still missing something, it had no heart.

Here we have a great cast, yet everyone is underused. Especially Dolph "Drago" Lundgren, it's almost criminal. With a cast like this you would expect everyone to get their moment to shine and have a kick ass part in the film. Jet Li does his martial arts thing, which we have seen before. Statham and Stallone are the only two characters the script pays attention to, everyone else is left to the wayside. Randy Courture and Terry Crews seem like after thoughts in this cast of characters. Stallone, you can't expect to give one character a big loud gun and expect everyone to forgive you by thinking he had a purpose. Mickey Rourke shows up, looking like he walked right off the set of Iron Man 2. His role is strictly dialogue and apparently gives Stallone a reason to go back to the island and save a girl.

Cordelia Chase or Charisma Carpenter, as her real name is, has two scenes. Both of them are a poor attempt at giving Statham some kind of backstory. The backstory is clichéd to hell and eye rolling. But, heck, what am I saying? Story in a flick with a bunch of guys who blow things up? I must be crazy right? The target audience doesn't care about that sort of thing. They want to see guns a blazin and explosions exploding. The last fifteen or so minutes is full of explosions, it is almost overkill. They needed to fill the running time so they added 5 minutes or so of just explosions. Exciting? Not really.

The fight scenes are poorly edited, hell even the famous trio scene is half assed. Stallone wanted to get so much in with Willis and the Governator that the scene is way to choppy and loose that it's just a mess. We get it, the three of you in one scene together, cool. Now let me actually enjoy it. Another nit pick I have, Stallone wants to celebrate the old days. The 80's if you will, with this film. Yet he had horrendous CGI effects. The green screen and the blood were so brutally obvious that it's jolting. What's wrong with squibs? If you really wanted to make a throwback action film you would have had those instead of CGI blood.

The Expendables is underwhelming, Stallone tries and has some moderate success. I couldn't get pass the whole going back for the woman bit. Eric Roberts makes a good bad guy, but the story revolving around him is pointless filler to get another 'name' in the picture. Stallone wanted to put way too much into this film and he seemed to rely too heavily on that dreadful line that will always come back to bite you in the ass. "We'll fix it in post".

No you won't.

2

[LuDiNaToR]

Dolph "Drago" Lundgren is underused for a reason he sucks:).

[honeykid]

Well, they all suck, so that's not really a reason. Not a good one, anyway. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 159: October 5th, 2010

Knight & Day.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/220px-Knight_and_day_09.jpg?t=1292997643

A Fun Time.

June (Diaz) is on her way home for her sisters wedding, when she meets a good looking guy, Roy (Cruise) that is on her flight. Little does she know, he is actually a spy and a trained killer. He has a battery that is wanted by the same organization that he use to work for. Now they both find out that the only people they can trust is each other.

Killers starring Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl is almost the same idea here as Knight & Day. Blonde woman who is enjoying her everyday life runs into a handsome guy, guy turns out to be a trained killer, yet she tags along with him anyways. The difference is that Knight & Day has a better cast, script, comedy, action and is more fun.

The film has its fair share of problems, but the overall product is a fun entertaining thriller with two leads who play well off each other. Cruise is back and this time he brought he comedic chops with him. Cruise was the funniest thing about Tropic Thunder and he might have a new genre to star in. He takes the role with charm, danger and fun. His co-star, Diaz, whom shared the screen with Cruise in Vanilla Sky, plays the role of the audience member. She is thrown into this world, knows nothing and is basically along for the ride.

James Mangold, who has some good films under his belt, directs the film well enough so the viewer can actually see the action sequences. There are a few instances where the obvious green screen was a bit of a distraction, but other than that, the action set pieces were entertaining enough. We start with a fight sequence on a plane, which is then landed in a corn field, then a car chase, some more fight scenes, followed by more chases, both on foot and a motorcycle. The film goes globe-trotting and it's nice to see the Europe country side.

The film does suffer from some weak writing for the so called bad guys. Throughout the film we are told two things. One, that the guy after Cruise is trying to sell the battery is framed him and two, that Cruise himself has gone rogue and stole it. It's obvious how the film will eventually unfold and this leads to some weak antagonists for the film.

The banter between Cruise and Diaz is fun and there are some funny sequences when Diaz is drugged and so many impossible and crazy things are going on around her, but we the audience only get a glimpse of it through her dazed and confused eyes. It's a funny sequence that starts with them getting captured and ends with them on a beach in swim gear.

Knight & Day is a fun way to spend 109 minutes and it's also nice to see Cruise back in films where he is having some fun.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 160: October 6th, 2010

Jonah Hex

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/jonah-hex-poster.jpg?t=1292997895

Is HATE a strong enough word to describe this film?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the worst film of 2010. Jonah Hex is a sorry excuse for a film, a horrible mess and everyone involved should be punished in one way or another. Well, everyone who is relatively good. Mr. Brolin and Mr. Malkovich should know better, I expect crap like this from Megan Fox. This is such a mess, I don't really know where to begin.

Well, If I have to start somewhere I guess it would be with the script. What a load of crap. If crap like this is what passes for screenplays these days then I need to change my 'career' path. I'm sure the script was riddled with spelling mistakes too, since the writer must not have known a single thing about what makes a story work. Nothing cohesive here, just a bunch of random scenes thrown together.

Next on the plate are the actors. We have Josh Brolin, who seems to have had a recent resurgence of fame with his role in No Country For Old Men. Not leading man type, he tries his best with the crap he was given. He has the troubled task of trying to give a performance with part of his mouth being sealed. So he grunts and mumbles his way through most of the lines. John Malkovich does the same old bad guy routine. He was better as the despicable villain in Con Air, Teddy KGB in Rounders and John Horatio Malkovich in Being John Malkovich. He was clearly looking for a paycheck and decided to sleep through his role here.

Lastly is Megan Fox, the girl that gets roles based on her looks and her looks alone. She scored with Transformers and made a lot of boys become teens. Here, the filmmakers decided that she wasn't pretty enough, so they must have used CGI to pretty her face up a bit because it seems that every shot of her has a heavenly glow. Her role? Pointless, she plays a tramp who sleeps with Hex, apparently they are in 'love'. She's used as bait to get Hex caught...that's it. Poor writing. They don't even use her best assets in this film. She has sex appeal and they use none of it. Her accent, if you can call it that, is ear bleeding.

Don't even get me started on the casting of Will Arnett.

Jonah Hex was never popular enough to warrant a film adaptation. This piss poor version is proof why you should not make every comic book character into a film. Jonah Hex comes off as a poor man's Wild Wild West. Yes, it is even worse than that trash...and that trash had giant robotic spiders.

The ideas presented here aren't even interesting enough to worth a mention. The powers that Hex has, being able to talk to the dead, is laughable. It is an idea that had potential, but was used poorly and the the aspects of it are laughable and inconsistent, or maybe just poorly explained. In any event, I was surprised that I was able to make it through to the end of the film, even with a running time of...what? 80 minutes? They couldn't even come up with enough material to fill the 90 minute standard run time? Wow, that's including ten minutes of credits? How do they get away with this?

Jonah Hex is so bad it's not even fun bad. It's just horrendous bad. I actually hate myself for watching this.

0.5

[Gunny]

I'm skeptical about this movie. I'll probably put it on Net Flix and check it out when I'm bored one day. Looks like it may be a fun flick. Tom Cruise isn't bad when he's not doing Mission Impossible remakes. And that God-awful Vanilla Sky movie. The only reason I watched all of that piece of garbage is because I wanted to see how bad it would get. Trainwreck effect and all that.

[honeykid]

You've only got yourself to blame for watching this. :D

Did you ever watch any of the films I recommended?

[TheUsualSuspect]

I have and they will pop up sometime soon.

[nebbit]

Day 160: October 6th, 2010

Jonah Hex

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/jonah-hex-poster.jpg?t=1292997895

0.5
Thanks for the review Sussy :) will give this a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 161: October 7th, 2010

Kill Bill Vol 1

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/kill_bill_ver4.jpg?t=1294208175

Wiggle Your Big Toe.

An epic film that the makes you wanting more and more by the time the credits roll. Tarantino's Kill Bill saga is his ode to Asian Cinema and the Spaghetti Western, two varied genres brought together in one explosion film that is split in two separate volumes.

The Bride is shot in the head on her wedding day by the man she once loved and his Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Yet, she somehow survives and is left in a coma. When she awakens, she decides to get her revenge on those who wronged her. Her list includes bumping off Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), Budd (Michael Madson) and the man himself Bill (David Carradine).

By the bloody climax of the first film, she is pretty much half way through her list. Those she comes to, apologize and some even accept their death. That epic bloody climax I mentioned is known as the House of Blue Leaves scene, or The Bride VS The Crazy 88. She slices and dices her way through 88 men, leaving blood splattered walls and the floor covered in limbs and bodies. A great scene that will gross you out and make you cheer for the pure sake of entertainment.

As the case is with every Tarantino film, Kill Bill Vol 1 is accompanied by a diverse and great soundtrack that suits the film. I'm not a Tarantino hater, I'm a fan and have yet to really dislike one of his films. Kill Bill is sheer fun and entertainment given to us by a talented filmmaker.

4

[nebbit]

:up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 162: October 8th, 2010

Frozen

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/frozen.jpg?t=1294462113

They are stuck on a ski lift...what else is there to tell you?

A bunch of kids get stuck on a ski lift and the ski resort will be closed for a week. How awesome does that sound? It's a genre film, for sure and a pretty good survival horror tale. Watching a film like this you can't help but scream at the characters for doing stupid things and you wonder to yourself what you would do in this situation. Frozen manages to cover a lot of bases, but it irritates the viewer at times because a lot of decision were stupid and used for the sake of 'entertainment'.

The most of the film takes place on the ski lift, so if you are not a fan of single setting films, I would advise against this one. Frozen is a simple idea that asks, what would you do in this situation. Two friends go to their traditional place to let go and ski/snowboard. One of them brings his girlfriend, much to the disappointment of his friend. They try to con their way onto the ski lift by bribing and flirting with the operator, so they don't have to buy their tickets. It's successful, they have their fun. They want to go up one more time before they close, an ice storm is coming in. The operator advises them not to, but allows them to go up one more time. Due to some contrived plot advances and confusion, the three of them get stuck near the top and the place closes down for the week. The three of them are left alone, high above the frozen ground in the dark cold.

First thing that comes to mind, is to jump. One character does this. He breaks his legs. Why did he decides to land on his feet and not try to tuck and roll and lands on his side or back is beyond me. He lies at the bottom there motionless and bleeding. Uh-oh, this attracts some hungry wolves. Why not try climbing the lift and shimmy across using the giant cable above? One character tries this, yet those cables are razor sharp and cut through his gloves.

A couple things, yes I know this is a movie so their faces must be visible for the camera, but why in the hell did these characters not zip their jackets up all the way? It would help with the frost bite one character gets. Or how about using the lighter you have to keep warm or signal some kind of fire? Many things these characters don't do will have you either screaming at the screen or wanting them to die for their stupidity. For the most part they did what I would do, jump or climb across the cable, so some props from me.

While the film is not scary, it does make you uneasy because this is something that could happen. A crazed serial killer that is immortal and has super strength and wears a hockey mask? Not so much. The realism is what makes this film scary. For what it sets out to do, it accomplishes the task. I can recommend Frozen for those who are interested in the concept.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 163: October 9th, 2010

AntiChrist

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/antichrist-poster-australia.jpg?t=1294510740

Art film, or pretentious crap?

Upon finishing the film, I sat there wondering why and what Lars Von Trier tried to accomplish with such a sexually aggressive violent film. The violence in question isn't a lot, but it's obscure enough to make you cringe. Never being one to shy away from controversial topics and imagery, Lars Von Trier creates one of his more disturbing pieces with Anti-Christ.

I'm sitting here writing this wondering what I watched. Did I get it? Not really, there are too many scenes of symbolism and metaphors to grasp, and my wanting to grasp them are very thin. I got as far as figuring out who the three beggars are and even that is visually pointed out to you. The film is told in chapters, "Grief", "Pain (Chaos Reigns)", "Despair (Gynocide)" and "The Three Beggars". The film begins and concludes with a prologue and epilogue. Both which are shot in black and white, in slow motion and to operatic music. The opening scene shows some beautiful cinematography, camera work and it feels like art. The opening is my favourite part of the film.

The story involved a couple retreating to a cabin after a family tragedy. While there, they try to cope with the tragedy, but nature has other plans. Weird to describe the story like that, but that's what happens. The two characters also have no names, at least we are not privy to them. They are known simply as He and She. They are also the only two characters in the film (aside from their son). Everyone else has their face blurred.

The film has some explicit content. I would never let my kids watch it (if I had any). Genital mutilation, explicit sex, frontal nudity, misogyny are all key points in this film. You will feel dirty after watching it. Art film, or pretentious crap, Anti-Christ walks that line sometimes.

2.5

[The Dame]

While the film is not scary, it does make you uneasy because this is something that could happen. A crazed serial killer that is immortal and has super strength and wears a hockey mask? Not so much. The realism is what makes this film scary. For what it sets out to do, it accomplishes the task. I can recommend Frozen for those who are interested in the concept.

That's a good point, Suspect. I hope I don't remember this the next time I go skiing.

[Plainview]

[quote=TheUsualSuspect;703546]Day 160: October 6th, 2010

Jonah Hex

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/jonah-hex-poster.jpg?t=1292997895

Is HATE a strong enough word to describe this film?
No it isnt, I would say this film put a dent in humanity.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 164: October 10th, 2010

Secondhand Lions

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/secondhand-lions-movie-poster-1020214358.jpg?t=1295160817

You bought a used lion?

A film that Powdered Water suggested the first time around. It tells the story of a shy little boy that is sent to live with his eccentric uncles. His mother is a little bit irresponsible. The uncles are played by Michael Caine and Robert Duvall, two great thespians that really seemed to love the material here. You can tell how much fun they had with this script and to work with each other.

Secondhand Lions is most likely (at least for me anyways) known as the film that the kid from The Sixth Sense did when he was older. It's a bad thing to say because the film the better than that. Haley Joel Osment might have fallen from the pedestal we all put him on, but he still manages to give a good performance.

The film is heartwarming and is a great piece to watch with the family, that's not to say the film isn't without it's emotional scenes. It's not all happy go lucky and there is a sense of realism to the film that I admire. Secondhand Lions is a good film that has strong performances.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 165: October 11th, 2010

Get Him To The Greek

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Get_Him_to_the_Greek_9.jpg?t=1295333574

When the world slips you a Jeffrey, stroke the furry wall.

A young intern at a record company is given the task of escorting an old and out of control rock star to the Greek theatre, for a comeback gig that will earn the company millions.

Was the character from Forgetting Sarah Marshall really likable, or popular enough to warrant a spin-off film? Someone thought so, thus we have Get Him To The Greek, where Russell Brand plays Aldous Snow. While he has had smaller roles in other films, it's this flick and Marshall, where people recognize him. Those who do not know this is a spin off might think he is a note note actor. We'll see when more work goes his way. Jonah Hill does his thing, make snide comic remarks at situations that seem to be one of the chosen bits from a line- o-rama piece. Just have him stand there, spit out random things that are funny and we'll pick the best one. I hope his style doesn't get old fast, or he's in trouble.

The film works for the most part, it's not as funny as you'd want it to be. The people that make this film funny are the supporting characters. Brand and Hill are probably the least funniest thing about this film. Sean "P.Diddy" Combs stands out, surprisingly. He has the comedic chops that fit this film and he worked it well. Colm Meaney, a character actor notorious for playing a-holes is hilarious as Snow's father. His scenes are great as well.

Get Him To The Greek is mild entertainment, there are far more funnier films out there than this one and the characters are pretty generic that you don't seem to care if they make it to the theatre or not. One of the weaker Apatow style films, which is a shame because it has a lot of talent. Get Him To The Greek, is as I initially expected, a mediocre comedy that barely gets the laughs out. Still, it's funnier than a lot of comedies that came out the same year.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 166: October 12th, 2010

Altitude

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/altitude_poster-345x500.jpg?t=1295422850

More Twilight Zone Than Monster Movie.

A group of friends take a small plane to fly to a concert. Things go horribly wrong when they ends up in an endless storm cloud and attacked by a tentacle like squid monster.

I checked this flick out because the concept of a giant cthulhu like monster flying around in the sky attacks a plane? How B horror movie awesomeness if that? The cherry on top was that it's a Canadian film. The downside is that the monster takes second...even third seat to everything else in this flick.

The film has major problems, most of them are with the characters and their actions. I can only take so many jerk jock characters before I shoot someone. Here, that jerk jock character is one of the more obnoxious ones to hit cinema. Second, we have an emo kid who has hidden feelings for one of the other passengers, the girlfriend of the jock. Both of these guys are jerks in one way or another. The girlfriend is a film major, she has her little video camera and occasionally has to playfully hit her boyfriend for saying something inappropriate, nothing else. Finally we have the pilot, a beautiful young woman, who is actually a novice at flying. Her mother died in a plane crash when she was little, so it's obvious that she wants to fly and have no fears of it, right? Her boyfriend is severely underwritten and has too much importance later on in the film. He has a fear of flying and collects comic books, that's all we get.

The majority of the film takes place on the small plane they take, they are on their way to a concert. After some equipment malfunctions, they end up flying right into a storm cloud. Everything turns dark and they can't see where they are going. They freak out, rightfully so and start throwing baggage out of the plane because they only have a limited supply of fuel. Next thing you know, one of the characters is hanging outside of the plane, tied off with some rope. Completely plausible (cue eye roll). I got it, I laughed and we were having a fun time, finally we get a glimpse of the giant squid like creature in the sky and we are down one character. You didn't think he was going to live did you? Did you think everyone was going to make it out of this all peachy?

Instead of the film becoming a classic monster flick, Jaws for the sky, it takes a weird turn and becomes another film entirely. We enter a Twilight Zone/Outer Limits area and more events come to light. Some of these events are meant to be a surprise, but if you can put two and two together, you'll see it coming. The ending reminded me of The Butterfly Effect, so take that as you will.

The acting was pretty bad, specifically the boyfriend of the pilot. Has he ever taken acting classes? He can't even yell right and pull off a believable angry face. The only person who had some talent was the lead. I don't blame the actors, really, it starts with the script. The script throws these unlikable characters into a small plane and we are stuck in there with them. I wanted the damn creature to show up before they even took off.

Altitude is a rental, at best. The film had potential, but terrible characters and a different direction in the script makes the film fall short of being fun cheesy entertainment.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 166: October 12th, 2010

Hedwig And The Angry Inch

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/hedwig.jpg?t=1295423312

Rock Opera

I really enjoyed Shortbus and HK recommended this odd little musical rock opera to me, so I gave it a try. It certainly has some catchy tunes and dedicated performances. As a whole it's something that I am glad I watched once, don't know how often I will be revisiting it though.

I like the gender switching of the roles, it adds that level of absurdity to vibe the film was going for. In terms of musicals, it rivals Rocky Horror Picture Show for pushing the boundaries of 'normal'.

My favourite song is probably Wig in a Box, second would be Origin of Love. Most of them I can't really remember, but I do remember most of them being catchy. I do like Shortbus better, but the two films are vastly different, even if they do tread some similar themes.

I give props to John Cameron Mitchell, for not only directing the film and having a unique style, but for diving head first into the lead role of Hedwig. A great performance from someone who has the daunting task of having to have control over numerous things. He gives 100 percent in both positions.

Hedwig isn't a film for everyone. Yet those wanting to experience something unique and fun, check it out.

3

[honeykid]

For those wanting to check it out and become a convert, you can watch the whole thing here.

(NSFW)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5797094034452754917#

Hedwig's always in or around the edge of my top 100. It's not on it atm, so it won't be starring in my Top 100 when I post it.

My favourite three songs are Angry Inch, Tear Me Down and Wig In A Box.

Anyway, TUS, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ah, yes Angry Inch. I liked that one as well.

[D34DT0Y]

Smokin' Aces 2: Assassin's Ball

If you hated the first film, thought it was decent or just liked it, I would advise you to skip this one. I only recommend it if you are truly a die hard fan. Even then, I say proceed with caution.

Weird ... I didn't like the first film, but enjoyed this one. So much so, that I watched it twice. I rarely do that with movies anymore.

[D34DT0Y]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre claims to be based on true events. The events, as far as I can tell, involve a man who would kill his victims, then wear their skin.

Well, that is one thing in TCM that is based on true events. Leatherface was based on Ed Gein who did wear human skin masks. Also, the bone furniture is another Ed Gein trait. Good ol' Ed Gein ... he has given so much to the horror genre. From Norman Bates to Buffalo Bill ... pretty much any knife wielding killer with mommy issues can be attributed to Ed Gein.

[D34DT0Y]

The Wizard of Oz

Hell, I even watched it while playing Dark Side of the Moon once.

Sorry, but that's lame. Dark Side of the Moon is not in sync with Wizard of Oz. Oh sure some things seem to match up, but play any album with any movie and some things will seem to match up. The real shocker would be if nothing did.

[D34DT0Y]

The Experiment

Some of the actions of the people in the film are questionable. I wondered why certain characters would follows others without question. The experiment itself isn't explored deep enough. The whole thing is about power and the abuse of it, what do people do? Do they do what is morally right, or what society deems morally right? If no one stops the experiment because of abuse, is it still okay to abuse people? These questions are just skimmed by on the surface, I wanted a bit more.

If you want more info on this topic ... go to the original source. This was a real life psychological experiment done in 1971. Just google ... Stanford Prison Experiment

[LuDiNaToR]

lol chill out.

[D34DT0Y]

lol chill out.


Who me? Why do you say that? LMAO

[LuDiNaToR]

u have posted like the last 4-5 posts lol

[D34DT0Y]

u have posted like the last 4-5 posts lol

Oh ... ya ... well I took the time to read all his reviews. But I only posted replies on 4. Could have been much worse. Sorry if it seems like spam, but I'm still trying to catch up on so many good threads. :)

[LuDiNaToR]

not complaining theres some good reviews here carry on ha.

[shnooky]

dead snow seems awsome, small post for such a long thread but Ive never seem the movie and it looks like a good "b" movie.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Dead Snow has a great second half to a mediocre beginning. One of the better nazi zombie films though.

[D34DT0Y]

TUS .... are you still taking requests? I can't say I always agree with your reviews, but I find them well done and fair enough. So, I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on some. Send me a PM with a list of the movies you've seen (if you have one). That would be easiest and avoid clogging up this thread.

If you're still taking requests that is ...

[TheUsualSuspect]

I am still taking requests, but they won't show up till I hit January.

Send over whatever movies you want me to see, it would be easier than me telling you what I've already seen.

[D34DT0Y]

I am still taking requests, but they won't show up till I hit January.

Next January? Or you mean what's on your list to watch for January? Or am I just utterly confused? lol

Send over whatever movies you want me to see, it would be easier than me telling you what I've already seen.

Okay, hopefully you haven't seen what I send. I'll toss you a PM sometime between now and tomorrow night. I want time to look through my list for some odd films.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The January month we are currently in. My list is only up till October right now. I'm backed up. I've watched a movie every day and have reviews written. It's just finding the time to get the pictures/posters and post them here. Most of my time is either at my part time job, writing screenplays, trying to find a job, or being with my girlfriend who I only get to see on weekends.

I hope to blast through November and December when I get to them though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 167: October 13th, 2010

30 Days of Night: Dark Days

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/30-Days-Of-Night-Dark-Days-2010-DvDrip.jpg?t=1295678591

Argh...Did They Try?

I'm not a huge fan of the original film, but I thought it did have a great atmospheric tone to it. The vampires looked great and it was pretty violent. This is the direct to dvd sequel, with a different actress in the role of Stella. For me it's always hard to connect to a character who is played by someone else in a sequel, the one notable exception for me is of course James Bond.

In this sequel, Stella has left Barrow for LA, where she has a book and tries to expose the truth. Vampires follow her and she soon discovers there is a leader, Lilith. Kill her and the rest will crumble. Joining a rag tag team of vampire hunters, they set out to kill her and end their nightmares.

This film plays more along the lines of Blade Trinity than 30 days of night. The vampire hunters are 3 people who have zero intelligence and no character development. In one particular scene they raid a vampires nest. They claim to have done this dozens of times. So what do they do? They walk in to the nest with a few guns, no exit strategy and no real plan what so ever. It was almost as if this was their very first time doing anything. We are then treated to the classic, "I can't kill my friend even though he is a vampire and will likely attack and kill me" scenario.

Kiele Sanchez is in the lead role, taking over for Melissa George. Those who have seen the first film will know she is a survivor. In this film she goes commando and is all of a sudden a weapons expert, explosives expert and machete expert. When did she become Alice from the Resident Evil series? She has nightmares of vampires attacking her and constant guilt over the death of her loved one from the first film. That's about as far as we go with any sort of character development here.

The vampires aren't as scary this time around. Mia Kirshner is not as fearsome as Danny Huston and the vampires themselves loose their 'danger' aspect. It doesn't help that the setting change to LA was not an improvement. I hear that most of what happens in this installment is true to the second book. I blame the source material then, because this film is not scary and entertaining.

I don't want to get into the ridiculousness that is the ending, something out of character (yes it happens in the book, I know) and cheats the viewer. We are treated to a wonderful scene near the end that if a dead vampire has blood poured into their mouth, they can regenerate and come back. First of all, that is stupid, second of all...you know where I'm going with this regarding the ending.

30 days of night wasn't a great film, but it had a creepy atmosphere that helped set it apart from other vampire films. This sequel just falls into the bunch of forgettable vampire films.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 168: October 14th, 2010

The Room

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/TheRoomMovie.jpg?t=1295678687

You're Tearing Me Apart Lisa!!!!

I've been wanting to write a review for this for awhile, keeping the fact that I've seen this film a secret until now was killing me. Yes, I watched The Room and yes it is indeed one of the worst films ever made.

So, what I took away from this film regarding the plot is this. Johnny is getting married to his girlfriend Lisa, yet she doesn't love him anymore, she has fallen for his best friend Mark. We know they are best friends because every time Mark and Lisa have sex, he says he shouldn't because he's Johnny's best friend, then he proceeds to have sex with Lisa. Everything comes to a climactic halt at Johnny's birthday party and the lies get unraveled.

So, for those of you not familiar with the film, let me give you a bit of information regarding the production and the final film itself.

Most of the dialogue had to be dubbed, mostly for the lead actor (who is also the writer, director, producer) and most of it is out of sync. All of the cast, never acted before. The actor who plays Mark agreed to play the role 72 hours before filming began. The actor who played Peter, quit the production half way, so a new character was written and given all of Peter's lines. This character is never named, or explained who he is.

Now let's look at the subplots, events that happen in the film and the impact they have on the story.

Lisa and her mother are discussing the party for Johnny, when Lisa's mother out of the blue says this: "I got the results of the test back. I definitely have breast cancer." "Oh, you'll be fine" was the response from the daughter. The cancer is never spoken of again. One character shaves his beard and other characters decide to dedicate full conversations to it (to fill up time?). Characters are wearing tuxes and then decide to play some football in the middle of the street. I must have missed why they were wearing the tuxes, wedding rehearsal? Characters randomly drop by the house to see if Johnny or Lisa is home, it doesn't matter if they are or not, they leave a minute later and tell the person who answered the door to tell the person they said hi. Denny, a young boy that Johnny helped get a place and paid for, owes a drug dealer some money. After Johnny and Mark take care of the drug dealer, this is never mentioned again. I have no idea what happened to the drug dealer. Denny also apparently wants to watch Lisa and Johnny have sex. Characters missing halfway through, unexplained. The list goes on and on.

The first 20 minutes, there are four sex scenes. One of which uses the same shots from the previous sex scene. One couple decide to go into Johnny and Lisa's house to have sex, the don't live there, but they have easy access. Tommy Wiseau, the creator of the film, claims to have intentionally made a black comedy, this is BS. The film was clearly trying to be a serious drama and it fails at that. The acting, is well, terrible. The mother seemed to be the only one 'trying'. Well, maybe Wiseau was trying, I couldn't tell. His most emotional scene was his tantrum at the end, throwing things around and tearing the house apart. He looked like he was sleepwalking while he was doing it.

I suggest playing a drinking game while watching this, with friends, not alone. Take a shot every time someone says "I don't want to talk about it", anytime Johnny laughs for no reason, anytime you see a football, anytime roses make an appearance, anytime someone says future wife/husband and of course, anytime something inexplicable happens. You'll be wasted within the first ten minutes.

I don't hate the film, I adore it for the absurdity. He tried, failed and is now riding the failing success to the top. The film is considered a cult classic. The 'Citizen Kane' of bad movies and Wiseau is using that to his advantage, smart move. Had he tried to defend the movie, it would have turned into a Showgirls. I wish someone had given me 6 million dollars to make a movie. I would have turned something in better than this. The guy didn't know the difference between 35mm and digital, so he filmed the movie with both cameras side by side. Interesting way to do things, but not showing confidence in your actors there. At least one of them knew what kind of movie it was and split before the film was finished. I would even make a better alley way set.

Oh Hi Mark.

I don't know what rating to give it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 169: October 15th, 2010

Whiteout

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/whiteout-horror-movie-cover.jpg?t=1296347358

A routine film of mediocrity

The basic premise of this gem is that a U.S. Marshal, on her last day station in Antarctica finds a dead body and has to investigate, discovering there is a killer out there. The story, events, plot twists, everything is routine and mediocre in this film. The one thing that tries to stand out is the location, Antarctica.

Whiteout is a film that has all the ingredients and none of the charm. The film has no heart, it feels cold and distant, much like the deserted location our characters find themselves in. Our attractive female lead has to overcome her past in order to get the answers to the case she is currently working on. We are treated to poorly edited and shot flashback sequences that involve a person she trusted and a drug dealer, things go badly for her and now she has trust issues. We get all this information after we see her take a shower, which was most likely included after the casting of Beckinsale.

The script is full of bad dialogue, filler to run the time a tad bit loner (getting trapped and then blowing p the escape hatch?) and of course plot holes. The acting is goofy and all around bad, with the exception of Tom Skerritt. Characters are easily identifiable as the killer, especially when the film tries so hard to place suspicion on one, you know it will be someone else.

Whiteout has nothing special going for it, I can't recommend it to those looking for something good, decent or even cheesy. If you want to see a film in the same location with better effects, acting, writing and direction, stick with The Thing.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 170: October 16th, 2010

RED

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/red_poster07.jpg?t=1287284235

A great ensemble cast makes RED work.

R.E.D stands for Retired and Extremely Dangerous. That's what has been tagged to Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) and he is a target of a hit. The ones trying to kill him underestimated his skills and he is out on a mission to find out who is trying to kill him and his maybe girlfriend (Mary-Louise Parker). So he rounds up the gang and they set out to find out who is behind everything.

RED is pretty much exactly like the other films I mentioned before (Losers, A-Team, Expendables) with only difference is that this film's angle is that the people who are dangerous are retired old people. The cast has Bruce Willis, doing his John McClane thing without the one-liners and more precision. Morgan Freeman pulling his Wanted role but in a good guy role. John Malkovich playing a retired CIA test subject that has been given daily doses of LSD for 11 some odd years. He seems like one of the Malkovich's that crawled out of the tunnel to his body in Being John Malkovich. Helen Mirren, in an offbeat choice. She plays sexy and dangerous and can hold her own against the boys. Karl Urban is the lead CIA officer sent to take them out, he plays his assassin role from Bourn Supremacy. He follows orders, not knowing if he is doing good or bad. Of course we have the Mary-Louise Parker character, who is like the audience, not knowing any of these things we are experiencing and are along for the ride.

Malkovich steals the show. He plays the role of conspiracy nut with a gun very well. He's off kilter and has the funniest bits in the film. The film is based on a comic book so you can expect over the top action and stunts. A revolver showdown versus a bazooka? Check. Playing baseball with a grenade? Check. Casually exiting a vehicle spinning out of control and nearly getting hit by the bumper while shooting at another vehicle and not blink an eye? Check. RED is over the top and funny. If you enjoyed The Losers or the A-team, Red is more of the same.

I enjoyed it, the plot revolves around a cover up and an old job that comes to bite those RED members in the behind. The twists it tries to give us is half baked but forgivable because the film is, overall an enjoyment. I must criticize the relationship between Bruce Willis and Mary- Louise Parker, it doesn't seem fleshed out enough to be taken at face value. They chit chat over the phone and he kidnaps her to protect her from people who are trying to kill her because he has had so many phone conversations with her. She ends up liking the thrill and excitement of his life, yet he says that she makes him feel like he can have a normal life. This conflict is never resolved or brought up again.

Morgan Freeman doesn't have enough screen time and the role could have been played by virtually anyone. Karl Urban is a likable guy, I seem to appreciate his role in everything he does, even if the film turns out to be uneven. He's good here too jumping onto moving vehicles to catch other moving vehicles (did I mention this film is over the top?)

RED is enjoyable and like I said, fans of those previously mentioned films will get a kick out of this one. It blends comedy and action well enough to pass the time. It's enjoyment hangs on the fact that these old people are kicking ass. It works. I keep mentioning how over the top it is, but it never reaches the heights of the over the topness of the A-Team. If that is any indication of this style of violence. I forgot to mention Brian Cox, he plays a Russian who becomes an integral part of the 'team'. Poor guy is nowhere to be seen in the promotional ads for the film and yet he has more screen time than Freeman. Anyways, RED is good popcorn fun. It's problems are obvious ones for a film like this, but the direction is slick and the film is funny.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 171: October 18th, 2010

Rubber

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rubber.jpg?t=1296347672

I expected it to be more fun...

A movie about a killer tire sounds like the most ridiculous concept next to someone creating a human centipede. Yet, these two concepts did in fact make it onto film and both of them failed to meet their absurdly high expectations. The film is a homage to 'no reason', as we are told at the beginning and when a film is created for no reason, you know you are in trouble.

The film opens with a character talking directly to the viewer by breaking the fourth wall. He states the the film has no purpose, so he is actually preparing you for the most useless film you'll ever see. Unless of course you've been one of the special few who have seen The Room. As interesting as this may be, it's also a drawback. Why would someone think that to interest an audience, you need to tell them from the beginning that everything has no purpose what so ever. It makes the audience feel like they are wasting their time. Rubber wasted my time.

I don't know why the prospect of a killer tire that makes your head explode sounded good to me, but it did. I thought I was in for a ridiculously cheesy good time. I got something else entirely. A boring, redundant film that has no fun factor. The audience is actually a part of the film, represented by a few people who actually watch the events unfold and make comments. Again, an interesting concept that never materializes.

I give the film credit for looking great, it never felt like a cheap film to me. They get creative when shooting scenes with the tire, they make the killer tire really seem to have a mind of it's own. They actually give it a name in the credits, Robert. All this creativity is wasted though on a script that bores the hell out of the viewer. They were on a mission to make a film with no purpose, good job they achieved it.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 172: October 19th, 2010

Spartan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/spartan-val-kilmer-poster.jpg?t=1296520524

The Last Starring Vehicle For Kilmer

Val Kilmer is an actor I have always been fond of. Sure, he has been in a lot of crap lately, but back in the day he was dedicated to his craft. His last good film was Felon, since then it's been down hill for the poor guy. Spartan, the Mamet written and directed feature was his last big starring role in a film that would have been seen because of him. Much like The Salton Sea, the film was good, seen by few and has a few detractors that take away from the overall enjoyment of it.

Kilmer plays Scott, an agent sent to rescue the kidnapped daughter of a high ranking United States government official. Kilmer plays the role with determination, next to no emotion and a sense of realism. He isn't Rambo, killing hundreds of guys without reloading, but he does know his way around a gun. Spartan sets itself apart from those films because it's more interested in the characters and the story than the action. Mamet has a keen eye for dialogue, most people either love it or hate it. Watch Glengarry Glen Ross to see just how good his writing can be. Here it actually sounds a bit off. I don't know if it's the delivery, or the writing, let's just say both. Some of the dialogue the characters would spew had me scratching my head in confusion.

The action, very little. Only when there needs to be, the rescue is quick and dirty, no car chase sequences out of the city at the last minute. This isn't a Michael Bay film. There are twists and turns, as to be expected with any film that deals with governments, these twists don't come as a surprise. You know there will be cover ups, double crosses and people who aren't who they claim to be. It's all part of the genre.

Spartan isn't great, but it's good enough to dedicated 2 hours to. Kilmer plays a more toned down Jack Bauer type character, not showy at all. Kilmer needs to finally put those low rent direct to DVD crappy films behind him and choose roles that will get him back on the map. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was brilliant and I believe that a film like Spartan, might actually help do the trick.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 173: October 20th, 2010

Eden Lake

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/eden-lake-horror-movie-poster.jpg?t=1296544590

A disturbingly dark film.

A couple go to Eden Lake for a relaxing weekend, where Steve plans to pop the question to his girlfriend Jenny. Much to their disdain, a group a thug wannabe kids plan to ruin their weekend and their lives.

Very few films leave me in such a depressed and angered mood. The only film that really got under my skin and emotionally drained me was Martyrs. Eden Lake is a film that steps up to the challenge and offers the viewer a look into realistic horror. A scenario that could happen and one that does not end happily ever after. Eden Lake doesn't have the Hollywood ending that some people will be hoping for, which is why it stands out above the rest.

The film presents us with some pretty disgusting and loathsome villains in the kids. They are arrogant, rude and crude. What at first seems like young kids being kids and annoying an older couple, quickly turns into something more sinister. They steal their car, after an altercation leads to the death of a dog, the kids go rabid and wild and chase after the couple. No more fun, these kids mean business. They capture and torture Steve, each taking their turns in stabbing him with a knife and choking him with the choke chain that belonged to the dog. I hated these kids and I wanted them to get what was coming to them, Eden Lake doesn't give you the pleasure of seeing any of that.

The film quickly becomes a survival horror as the young lady tries her best to survive, not only the kids, but the elements. She is lost in the woods and has to fend for herself. I prayed and rooted for her to make it to safety and she almost did. Making it back to civilization, I thought she was home free. The ending is disturbing and leaves you with a foul taste in your mouth. Something that I applaud and hate the film for. Here we have a movie that decides to not play ball and it goes out on it's own note. Yet, I'm always one to hate a film where the character, that I absolutely hate, end of winning. Eden Lake is this kind of film.

I watched it based on the recommendation of a friend, I liked it. It was shot well, the acting was realistic, even if the kids were annoying, and the gruesome scenes were indeed cringe worthy. Eden Lake joins Martyrs and The Mist for depressing endings that leave you angry and disturbed. Kudos.

3.5

[honeykid]

Eden Lake joins Martyrs and The Mist for depressing endings that leave you angry and disturbed. Kudos.

I've got all three of these films and have yet to watch any of them. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Get to it. Although Martyrs is just disturbing in general.

[honeykid]

lol... I know. If you could see all the films I have, but have yet to watch, you'd have a fit. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 174: October 21st, 2010

GACY

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/gacy-movie-poster-1010274424.jpg?t=1297140457

A combination of bad writing, bad acting and bad filmmaking.

Gacy tells the story of serial killer John Wayne Gacy, a man whom many believed to be a noble and friendly man. His death toll is approximately 33 young men, who were found buried in his crawl space.

Reading up on John Wayne Gacy is more terrifying than watching this half baked attempt at telling this man's story. Out of the three serial killer films I have seen,Ted Bundy, Dahmer and now Gacy, I have to say that this was the least interesting, the least inspired and the most boring. I thought Dahmer was pretty boring, but at least that film tried to get in the mind of the character, Gacy doesn't try to do anything except tell the bare bones story, at least what they decided to read about him, and put it on film.

The film makes no real attempt at portraying the man behind the murders. We are introduced to his father abusing him as a child, then apparently he hears voices and kills young men. The torture sequences are tame and the death scenes come off as 'accidents'. You never fully experience the terror this man brought onto the lives of others. The film almost plays out like a comedy, I honestly can't tell if that's what it was trying to be. If so, bad taste, if not, bad filmmaking.

The script is bad, full of ear bleeding dialogue. The actors seem to make no real effort here and the movie itself has a lot of inaccuracies. The film begins with the title card saying that names, places and events have been fictionalized to protect those people. This immediately gives you a bad feeling that the filmmakers have taken the story of Johny Wayne Gacy and purposely distorted facts to make an entertaining and emotional film. Fail on both accounts. It's more of a slap in the face to the families of those who went through this.

The film seemed more fixated on the rotting stench beneath Gacy's house, rather than a cohesive story. I know what that smell was, not the dead bodies, but this excuse for a film.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 175: October 22nd, 2010

Hereafter

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Hereafter-OneSheet_720.jpg?t=1287815581

To connect with the dead...a gift? Or a curse.

3 stories about 3 different people who are touched in some way by death. A little boy loses his twin brother, a young French journalist drowns in a tsunami, to later be revived and finally a psychic who wants to leave that profession behind and try to live his life.

I must admit, Hereafter did not entice me with it's promotional trailers. I thought the film had an interesting premise, but what I saw as far as story telling was something that left me empty and wondering that the film would most likely be left with a hollow hole at the centre. I'm not even that big of a fan of Eastwood. The man makes good films, but I wouldn't say I'm rushing to see his work. I don't know why, but ever since Million Dollar Baby, a buddy of mine and myself have seen every Eastwood film that has come out since, in the theatres. Why? Because it's Clint Eastwood.

Despite not being that interested in the film, I gave it a chance thinking that it could end up surprising me. I was wrong, the film is exactly what I expected and maybe even less. This is a shame because it is an interesting and even thought provoking premise that was nice to see explored, but it wasn't explored deep enough. Eastwood has always had a way with the camera, knowing what he needs and getting the shot, his films have a skillful elegance to them, and Hereafter is another example of a fine director at work. Unfortunately, it pails in comparison to his earlier works and for everything good about it, there are 3 things that are boring.

The film tries to feel depressing, it's about loss and death, but we never get that feeling with the film. I was never depressed or felt any kind of emotional connection to a group of people I'm suppose to be connecting with for the next two hours. This is the biggest problem. The characters are boring, uninteresting and flat. Damon is a saving grace, he gives George a haunted side that craves and requires companionship and isolation, all at once. His role is not enough to save a film that centres just as much screen time on two other characters that bring the flow and story of the film to a halt.

That little boy cannot act and it hurt me to see him on the screen. His pleas for his brother to be okay and still alive hurt my ears. Monotone and emotionless. I get the fact that he doesn't talk much and is shy, but there are little child actors who are able to pull this off. This one did not. There is a scene in which the little boy is about to board a subway, he is 'saved' when his hat flies off. We are to expect that it was his brother doing this and we are treated to the over done, trying to get my item off the ground while people walk by unknowingly kicking it around. I thought Eastwood was better than this?

The story lines do not intertwine and connect until late in the film. I would have wanted and the film needed them to submerge together sooner. The entire films feels like it is going nowhere but in circles. There is a story, but no plot. We follow these people doing mundane things. For some reason, I expect to be in the minority here. The film comes off as trying to convey important messages of things we cannot understand and thus it becomes a tad bit pretentious. I hate using that word for films, but I'm using it here. The film ends with a connection I feel nothing towards and left me with a confused look. I contemplated what I had just seen, was it really brilliance and I simply missed it? Not in the least, the film tries to be more important than it actually is. I feel like I was turned off right from the beginning with the bogus CGI used in the tsunami. It left me feeling, well, dead inside.

Hereafter is another forgettable film and right after the equally uninteresting and forgettable Invictus, I'm afraid Eastwood is trying too hard now. Both these films feel out of place for a director like Eastwood. He seems out of his element and it shows. Eastwood and Hereafter won't be seeing any award shows this year.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 176: October 23rd, 2010

Iron Man 2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/ironman2_poster.jpg?t=1297141756


More of the same...

People faulted this film for being good, but not great. What the hell, so will I. Iron Man 2 has all the right ingredients to make a great summer blockbuster superhero film, yet the final product is more of what we already saw, minus the heart.

Iron Man 2 has Tony Stark AKA Iron Man fighting off Ivan Vanko, a man hellbent on revenge, as well as a new arms dealer Justin Hammer. For the sake of cramming more characters in sequels, like all sequels do, we also have Natasha Romanoff/Natalie Rushman, better known as Black Widow.

Black Widow, or the eye candy known as Scar Jo, adds nothing to the film for me. This was one of my worries, too much going on. Iron Man isn't overloaded like X-3 was, but it was getting there. The story is the classic revenge tale, with Mickey Rourke as the villain. A role he was only given because of his recent career revival with The Wrestler. If you watch The Expendables, you'll notice he looks exactly the same as he does here. Almost as if they were shooting next door and he wandered onto the set. Ivan, isn't that memorable as a villain (looks don't count). Rourke tried his best, but there just wasn't much there in the script.

The action set pieces are entertaining enough to appeal to a younger audience. The threat level doesn't feel as big, with the addition of War Machine, again more stuff added, it just felt like we were waiting for Iron Man to succeed. The stakes simply weren't high enough for me to really care this time around.

The party scene with Tony in the Iron Man suit, drunk and shooting off missiles in his house was laughable and was just added to have the two character fight each other. Superhero sequels tend to be a but better (X2, Spiderman 2) but this one just dropped the ball a bit. I don't know if the first one set the bar too high or if the filmmakers were just a bit lazy. Either way, we lost out a bit on this one.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy :yup: nice reviews :)

I actually liked Invictus :blush: I have spent a lot of time in South Africa, they love their Rugby :yup:

[Brodinski]

I've yet to see Hereafter. What did you think about Cécile de France's performance? She's Belgian and received quite a lot of press here for being in an Eastwood film, but from what I've seen from her work, she didn't strike me as incredibly talented...

I agree on Iron Man 2. I too had issues with the bigger-is-better approach. There are too many characters, Ivan Vanko is not a memorable villain, Scarlet Jo is eye candy, we ought to see more of Justin Hammer but didn't. The best action scene was at the race track in the beginning of the film, which was dissapointing to say the least.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Agree 100% on Iron Man 2

As for Cécile de France's performance, it didn't really do anything for me. I had a hard time understating some of what she was saying at times. I think Damon was the best one out of the bunch.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 177: October 24th, 2010

Hostel Part II

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/hostel2onesheet.jpg?t=1297304869

Seemed more tame than it should have been.

Hostel Part II flips the genders and now we have three women, instead of men, going through Europe. They stay at the hostel from the first film and soon become victims of the rich man's torture game.

I like Eli Roth, even if I'm that that big a fan of his movies. I didn't really dig the first Hostel and this one doesn't fare any better. The guy is trying his best to re-invent horror, yet he seems to be one of the followers. For me, each decade had some interesting horror films. The 80's had cheesy horror movies and gave us some iconic horror characters. The 90's re- invented the slasher genre with Scream and then we hit this decade and we have what people are calling torture porn. Saw, Hostel and countless other movies that throw victims into the clutches of a mad man who tortures them.

Hostel, for what it's worth, was a little bit entertaining. The third act of the film added some suspense and thrills. Hostel II has none of this. It feels like build up to nothing. There was only one scene that was interesting, the blood bath sequence. Creepy, hot and horror quality. The rest of the film was disappointing. Roth should know that people are going to see this move for those torture scenes, which made the first film a success. This film has none of that.

The girls are great too look at, but their characters are irritating. This film tried to show a bit of the other side, the rich torture guys. We get two characters who pay to kill these girls and predictably, one goes soft and the other one looses it. Roth tries so hard to shove the fact that one guy is psyched to do this while the other is hesitant, it's obvious that one of them would flake out. I even called which guy.

Hostel Part II lacks the good parts that made the first one watchable...and I didn't even like the first one. I'm still waiting for Roth to deliver us something truly worthy of the horror genre. Cabin Fever and the Hostel films just fall short of that.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 178: October 25th, 2010

The Wolfman

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the_wolfman_poster9.jpg?t=1297305716

It looked great.

The classic tale of the Wolf Man, is updated. After hearing about the disappearance of his brother, Lawrence comes back home, only to discover that his brother is dead. He searches for the beast that did it, but is bitten. He soon discovers that the legends of a Wolf Man are true.

I know nothing about the original, even if The Wolf Man is my favourite universal classic monster. So I was excited to hear they were doing a revamp on the movie and with a great cast. Then I hear rumblings of trouble on the production side of things, I try to ignore what I hear and go into every movie with an open mind. The Wolfman is not a terrible movie, simply a misguided one.

I must say that the film looks marvelous, the set design, costume and cinematography really shine in this film. They captured that time era really elegantly. Second, the makeup effects from the legend Rick Baker are phenomenal and I hope an Oscar win comes his way. I respect the fact that they went the traditional route and went with authentic rather than full on CGI *cough* An American Werewolf in Paris *cough*. The rapid use of CGI to conquer the monsters of late has grow tiresome. Back then, CGI was the rave, even if it looked cheap and bad. Here, we have a genuine look that feels and actually looks real.

With every werewolf film, you wonder what the transformation sequence is going to look like. I still think that to this day, no other film has captured it quite like An American Werewolf in London has. Sometimes the transformation sequence can make or break a film. The Howling does a decent job, An American Werewolf in Paris does not. I'm sorry I keep hating on that movie, but it really is bad. The Wolfman has their transformation sequence in CGI. No real complaints here. It looks painful, at times a bit fake, but interesting nonetheless.

All the cast involved do their job, no one seems to go above and beyond. You get what is expected out of Hopkins, Del Toro and Weaving. Blunt fills the role of crying woman well enough. Their so called romantic plot between the two is boring, uninteresting and not realistic. It feels like a studio head wanted this in to try and sell more tickets. Again, knowing nothing about the original, I knew who the first werewolf was and the film didn't even try to hide it. The werewolf vs werewolf sequence was interesting, but a more action turn than horror for the third act.

The Wolfman is a mediocre film that isn't really action, isn't really horror. It's full of some brutal killings and blood left right and centre, so some horror enthusiasts will be pleased. I found most of the film to be drawn out and a tad boring. Even the suspenseful chase scenes were yawn inducing. The Wolfman has great technical achievements, but weak story and characters are enough for a pass.


2

[mark f]

I actually liked the "unrated" version I saw on DVD, but it had Max von Sydow and a nice level of romance. I didn't bother to watch the theatrical version which was about 15 minutes shorter I think. Which version did you watch?

[TheUsualSuspect]

I watched the unrated. I just never buy the romance pieces that evolve out of nowhere and start with the death some a loved one. They always end of falling for the brother/friend...it grows tiresome.

[kcmovieman]

These are really good reviews, thank you!! Keep 'em coming!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 179: October 26th, 2010

In Hell

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/inhell.jpg?t=1297492347

JCVD In Prison

After coming home to a murdered wife, Kyle chases after the man who did it. They get arrested and the man walks away scot free, he comes from a wealthy family and has paid off the judge. Kyle can't stand for this, he shoots the man several times right in front of the court house. The judge takes this as a disrespect to the law and human life, sentences him to life in prison. This is in Russia and the prison he goes to is not really a nice one. The warden hosts fights between the inmates and makes money off of them, Kyle soon finds himself tangled in a series of fight matches with some real mean dudes.

I'm a JCVD fan, so my views on his films tend to be a little bias. I give them a little break because...well....it's a JCVD film. You should know going into a film starring the guy, you're going to get little on the acting side and a lot on the kicking side. In Hell flips this around a little bit. Instead, we get JCVD pulling out some acting chops. He mourns his dead wife, is beaten emotionally and physically and has to deal with the harsh realities of prison. He doesn't go above and beyond, but you will get a little bit more out of him here than his usual fare.

Second, the film leaves his splits, 360 spin kicks and other high flying acts at home. In Hell goes for more realistic and gritty fight sequences. There are some moves that belong in a wrestling ring, but for the most part, these guys look like they are beating the living crap out of each other. It makes the viewer feel more for the character, he's not some martial arts guru, he's a guy fighting for his life. Again, it tends to humanize the character a bit and connects more with the audience.

As far as a JCVD film goes, I would rank this one as one of his better efforts. as for as prison movies go, I'll let it slide a little bit. He of course befriends the one guy people seem to be afraid of. The guards treat him worse than the other inmates and he is thrown into isolation more times than we can count. Predictable and cliched prison bits, but it's expected. You can guess how one big fight scene will go down because of the way he interacted with the guy while thrown in isolation, so the film doesn't throw any surprises our way.

It's also tame on the escape scenes. There are a few, and it never feels like we are on the edge of our seat, wanting them to escape. This is a feeling you need to get from the audience when characters are trying to flee for their lives, this film manages to side step this.

In Hell is a surprisingly decent movie, I'm sure if it starred anyone other than JCVD I would give it a negative review, so take that whichever way you want to.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 180: October 27th, 2010

Finding Bliss

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/finding_bliss_final_theatrical_poster.jpg?t=1297492560

The good movies are coming...I promise.

I rented this movie for a few reasons, neither of which was because I thought it would be good. One, the cover of the dvd said "It's Boogie Nights for women", the second was that it was about a recent film school graduate who gets to work in the porn industry. Why? Well, not only to pay the bills, but so that she can use the studio at night and edit suites to make her own damn movie. Hmm...interesting.

Well, the film is really a direct to dvd quality film. You can immediately tell, if you couldn't from the cast: Leelee Sobieski, Denise Richards, Jamie Kennedy, Kristen Johnston and then some porn stars. It was written and directed by a woman, so the film is her basically a woman's view of the porn industry. Which is why I should have known that the big nude scene would involve a male and not a female. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Jamie Kennedy shows off his junk. I was not impressed. :D

Obviously working as an editor on a porn movie during the day and directing your own movie at night will take a toll on you, it does for our lead character. She falls for a guy who is directing the porn, why? Well, because every script needs some kind of romantic bit to it to attract the audience. Otherwise, these two people would never hook up. The comedy is tame and hardly funny, the drama has been done to death before (her parents find out and disapprove) and she says some things that her friends find out about and then...boom, she has no friends.

The real reason this film fails is because not only does it lack humour, but it lacks heart. The film feels cold and dead inside, not a good sign.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 180: October 27th, 2010

Unknown

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/unknown.jpg?t=1297493244

November....it will be a good month.

5 guys wake up in an abandoned warehouse, sick and with no memory of how they got there, who they are and even why they are there. With time running out, who can they trust and how can they work together to find a way out.

I like a good mystery film. Something that makes you think, or try to figure bits and pieces out before the ending comes. Unknown came off to me as that type of flick. A bunch of people wake up not knowing who they are, where they are or who to trust? Count me in.

For the most part, the film did what I hoped it would. It gave me a problem that I had to solve, a problem that the characters themselves had to solve. It also had a pretty good cast, I knew everyone in it and I actually like the people in it too. Then as the film began to come to it's final conclusion, it became full of too many twists and turns that it lost it's own footing. You know those films that should have ended, but then for the sake of it, throw one last twist in there. Unknown is that type of film. I could have been happy with the film ending the way it was going, then it just had to throw one more twist in, incase people thought they had it all figure out.

I would have preferred a more depressing ending myself, but instead we get a mildly happy one. James Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Barry Pepper, and Jeremy Sisto star as the people in the warehouse trying to find a way out. Other stars such as Peter Stormare and Bridget Moynahan are doing things outside of this place. Piece by piece, more information is revealed to us so we get to see the bigger picture. Nolan does a great job of this in his films. The big picture in unknown, is not that big. Instead it's pretty boring.

We eventually find out that two of them are being kidnapped and held for ransom, the other three are the kidnappers. But who is who? Joe Pantoliano is tied to a chair for most of the movie and Jeremy Sisto is handcuffed the entire time. The man has little screen time and the little bit he does get, is him sitting, handcuffed to a railing. The pieces to the puzzle, some are interesting, some aren't. The big picture isn't as good as one would hope.

Unknown is something that I would recommend renting, not a purchase type of film.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I think I can pull off 3 reviews a day, or more. In order to catch up. I have this weekend off. :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 181: October 28th, 2010

Day Watch

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/daywatch-unrated.jpg?t=1297624802

Again...too much going on.

A sequel to Night Watch, which came out roughly three years earlier than this one, sees the main character, Anton, caught...again, in a battle between light and dark. This time there is a mysterious chalk that can alter time, giving the person who wields it unlimited power. Anton is also being accused of killing one of the dark people, which would break the truce they have. So there is a mad search for the guy, but he switches bodies with a female co-worker to hide from those who are known as the dark ones.

Yup, I had no idea where this movie was going. After watching it, I'm still confused as to what exactly happened. I prefer Night Watch because it set the world up better and introduced us to the things. The problem with this film and the first one is that there is simply way too much going on. Both of them are based on books and you can tell because there is a lot of backstory and detail in these films. If you don't watch them within a relatively short time period between each other, you might get lost. I sure did.

The film is way too long, clocking in at 2 hours and 30 some odd minutes. Even longer if you watch the unrated version. Maybe I wasn't in the right mood, but it felt like a chore chugging through this film. I completely forgot there were vampires in these movies until one character flat out asks another if he is one. I applaud the world created here, it has some interesting mythology attached to it, but I can't help but think things would be better explained if it were stretched to three movies instead of two. I realize they are doing a third one now, but it is with different characters and a different story.

The ending ties things up with the first one and it's always lovely to see a film do that. Day Watch is interesting, but maybe a little too interesting. So much that it tends to drag on and bore the viewer at times. Things happen so fast that it's hard to keep up with what's going on. Which is interesting, very few movies have so many things going on at an alarming rate that it drags, yet Day Watch just so happens to be able to do this.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 182: October 29th, 2010

THINNER

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/thinner.jpg?t=1297746069

I curse you...Thinner.

Ever since I saw this dvd in a jumbo video when I was a kid I wanted to see it. I thought the cover was cool, you could see the man's skeleton. The idea of a man getting thinner and thinner every day until he withered away to nothing but skin and bones was a story that interested me. Not to mention that it was based on Stephen King's story.

Fast forward about 13 or so years, maybe more. I've finally gotten the chance to watch Thinner. Much like another film I always wanted to see when I was a kid, Bad Moon, Thinner obviously did not live up to my childhood expectations.

I knew this going in, it was going to be a bad movie. I thought hey, maybe I'll get to see some nice make-up effects and probably a good ending. Negative on both accounts. From what I hear of the original, it was suppose to be darker, instead they went with a comedic route. I also expected his thinning body to be more apparent. The makeup used for him in the beginning to make him fat is painfully obvious. I guess I was expecting too much from this aspect of the film too.

The story goes like this, the guy is a big shot lawyer. One night he is receiving oral sex from his wife while driving a car and he kills a gypsy woman. A judge and a cop get him off scot free, which leads another gypsy to curse him thinner, as well as the judge and cop, who get their own little curse.

Thinner is a forgettable film that works better on paper than on film. I will say this though they did manage to make an actual film out of the story. I did not know how they would be able to make it interesting, but he searches for the gypsy to un-curse him. So there is a bit of excitement, as he goes looking for these people.

Still, not enough to warrant a happy ending for the viewer.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 183: October 30th, 2010

Night of the Demons

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/NightOfTheDemons.jpg?t=1297746539

The badness made me like it.

Horrible acting, bad ADR and an obvious man wearing a blonde wig doing a stunt for the lead female. These things make Night of the Demons a classic 80's horror film, when it should have hurt it's chances of me enjoying it. Weird how sometimes these things will make me hate a film and appreciate others. I guess it has to do with tone, genre, the film's goal and the decade it came out in. Don't ask me why about the decade...

Night of the Demons is about a group of kids who go to a house that use to be a funeral on Halloween night. For some strange reason demons wake up and possess the teens. One by one they are attacked, killed and possessed.

The movie is full of stupid and unlikable characters, so seeing them die wasn't a biggie. There's only one gruesome scene to note off, one character gets his eyes poked out. This film has it all, death, bad dialogue, bad acting, low production values and nudity. The corner stone of almost every cheesy horror film that came out of the 80's. Night of the Demons spawned 2 sequels, and most recently a remake with Diora Baird....*drool*

Classic horror fans might get a kick out of this one, if they can appreciate and or love the horribleness that one can expect from an 80's horror film.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 184: October 31st, 2010

Paranormal Activity 2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Paranormal_Activity_2_Poster.jpg?t=1297747198

The last bit of this film made up for the first half.

Paranormal Activity 2 is the story of one family who decide to get some security cameras installed in their home after they suspected they were robbed. What the cameras find is something more paranormal.

The first film was made for next to nothing in one guys house with some friends. It had good special effects that seemed more realistic because of the simplicity of everything. It was a huge success based on word of mouth. Ca-ching. Now we have a sequel. In sequels usually the filmmakers will go bigger and better. Paranormal Activity 2 still has the same low key feel to it but at the same time it does feel grander.

I was bored to death with the first half of this film. The building of the tension was a bit slower for me than I would have liked. Paranormal Activity, if I remember correctly, did not take as long to get to where it wanted to go. The building of suspense here is too mundane. Luckily for this film, the second half woke me up and it was some pretty exciting stuff. Let me get this out of the way though, it does not have the same affect as the first one. The atmosphere that was in the air with the theatre from the original was gone with this one. We knew what to expect. We knew what the scares were going to be. "Okay, this is where the door closes. This is where she gets dragged on the floor. This is where we hear noises."

With that being sad, this film did do a few things differently than the first. The original film relied on visuals to scare the audience. Shadows, hooves imprints, flaming Ouija board, blankets, possession, etc. The sequel however relies more on sound. The sudden loud moments are what make you jump, not the visuals. The jump scares are in this one where the uneasy tension of fear was in the first.

The sequel also tries to up the ante by introducing a baby in danger. Babies are defenseless after all. Let's not forget animal endangerment as well. All aspects that overall did nothing for me, but it was a nice addition to change it up a little bit. The film also has some sort of story that goes with it. It gives a little bit of information on why these things are happening and I was surprised that they decided to go this route.

I give them credit for making it connect to the first one more than I thought it would. It doesn't come off as a sequel with no purpose (even though it actually is). The story it dives into gives more background to the first events and connects the dots. I must say that the last 5 or so minutes were the best part of this film.

Paranormal Activity 2 gets a thumbs up from me, even if it does lack the charm, fear and respect of the first one.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 185: November 1st, 2010

SAW 3D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/saw3d.jpg?t=1297747285

The Saw series ends on a high note.

Hoffman continues the game that Jigsaw started and must cover up all his tracks. After surviving a trap himself, he sets out to kill the person who put him in it. Jigsaw's wife, Jill.

I went into Saw 3d with mixed excitement. The last few Saw films have gotten more outrageous than the last and even more complicated. Even though Saw VI was a step up, I didn't expect them to keep it up. Much to my surprise, Saw 3D is one of the best entries in the series. So what can you expect from this one? Well, elaborate traps, blood and gore and of course twists. Exactly what the series has always been, but this time it was fun. The 3D aspect didn't add much, it was used to throw things at the screen in whichever trap.

Dr. Gordon from the original returns here, we finally get to see what happened to him after he sawed off his own foot. Why bring him back now? His screen time is significantly short, yet adds more layers to the already convoluted series. For me, I separate the first film from the others. I still think it stands alone in terms of story. It was never meant to be a series that has gone on this long, but I am interested and intrigued at how they continued it and branched it off into what we see every Halloween.

I still say that the most shocking ending was the first, with the second one right behind it. The rest became routine and this one is no exception. The kills however are the highlight. They are gory as hell, probably the goriest in the whole series. I was laughing and cheering with each death. Finally we have people working together in a trap and finally we get to see the original bear trap around the face work. It's been 7 or so years, but it finally worked.

The film follows two story lines. In one Hoffman is trying to get revenge on Jill. In the other Sean Patrick Flanery must go through a bunch of traps to save his friends and loved ones. This structure follows Saw III and Saw VI. I'm not complaining because both of those entries were decent. Each trap he comes to he sees someone that has helped him earn money from his lie. Each attempt at saving them either will end in success or failure. Since this is Saw and as I mentioned, one of the bloodiest ones yet, you can imagine what his success rate is.

I would also love to thank the editor, for once this film decides to ditch the hyper kinetic editing style. We can actually see what's going on now. There is one small scene where it is still employed, but the trap is very minimal that you don't care. It might have taken 7 films to finally realize that it was useless and distracting, but they did it.

I had a really fun time watching this entry and I hope it is the last, as they say it is. They said that about VI, but it was left open for another entry. This one seems to tie everything up, but there is always that chance, they could possibly continue the series, but with how things turned out I would simply beg the question why? I did that 4 films ago, but they were still intriguing at some level. Look to any other horror series that has more than 4 films and the quality dips drastically. Saw doesn't. Sure, they had some weak points V was pretty lame, but in the end, they all had some redeeming qualities about them. They all were connected on some form and it feels like one long story because they always pick up exactly where the previous one left off. My main interest in this series, aside from the gory deaths, would be to see how well they connect all the films.

I would have liked to have seen more characters make it through more films. It seems with each new one there is a new detective. At the same time there are so many characters from the previous films that I don't know which film they appeared in. They all seem to blend together and none of them stand out. The series should have ended with VI, it was the one that closed the series well. Change the ending to it and everything could have been great. Saw 3D ties up whatever loose ends Saw VI had. The Saw series was never made for critics, it is clearly a genre and fan tailored series. This entry will please those fans.

3.5 <-Self loathing fan rating

[TheUsualSuspect]

November is when I hit a lot of recommended movies from last time. So keep checking in to see which ones.

As for the movies I've seen so far (up to the review date) here is a list:

MAY

A Nightmare On Elm Street
Revolutionary Road
Extract
How To Train Your Dragon
The Amateurs
Dead Snow
In The Loop
Barb Wire
State of Play
Six Shooter
Smokin Aces 2
17 Again
The Lovely Bones
Planes, Trains & Automobiles
The Taking of Pelham 123
Alien Resurrection
Angels & Demons
Dead Girl
The Collector
Blood Simple
The Thing
Three Kings
Story of Ricky
Kung fu Hustle
Martyrs
Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs
From Paris with Love
The black Dahlia
Igor
Speed
Spongebob Squarepants

June

The Game
I Love You Philip Morris
Get Low
Shark Tale
The Breakfast Club
Forrest Gump
The Rundown
Funny Games
Hot Tub Time Machine
Carriers
P2
Hot Fuzz
The A-Team
Crank High Voltage
Chopping Mall (get yelled at by mark f for watching this crap and not good film)
Funny People
Shadow of a Doubt
Saboteur
Toy Story 3
Men of Honor
X-Men
X-2
X-Men: The Last Stand
The House of the Devil
Near Dark
Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince
Fright Night
Rocky
Rocky II
Rocky III

July

Rocky IV
Rocky V
Rocky Balboa
After Hours
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Groundhog Day
Panic Room
From Beyond
Year One
Natural Born Killers
The Fifth Element
Election
Mystery Team
Big Trouble in Little China
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Taxi Driver
Rocky Horror Picture Show
Unrivaled
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Inception
The Aviator
Rear Window
2012
The Score
Jurassic Park
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park III
Apocalypse Now Redux
Insomnia
Antitrust
Deep Rising

August

XII
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
The Glass House
She's Out of My League
The Professional
Gangs of New York
Eight Legged Freaks
John Q
Identity
Precious
Rope (short)
The Other Guys
Captivity
Vamp
Sherlock Holmes
Sideways
A.I.
The Human Centipede
Piranha 3D
Stranger Than Fiction
A Serbian Film
The Devil's Rejects
Seven Samurai
Couples Retreat
Kick Ass
Dagon
Ghosts of Mars
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
Sublime

September

Awake
On The Waterfront
Cry Freedom
Julie & Julia
Machete
Papillon
Rudy
Wizard of Oz
Dreamcatcher
Last Action Hero
Run Fatboy run
The Phantom
Heavy Metal
After-Life
Blade
Blade II
Blade Trinity
The Town
Do The Right Thing
Dark Country
The Slammin' Salmon
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Friday the 13th
The Experiment
The Passion of the Christ
Repo Man
Suicide Kings
Assassination of a High School President
Grown Ups
Predators

October

Centurion
The Social Network
Crazy on the Outside
The Expendables
Knight & Day
Jonah Hex
Kill Bill Vol 1
Frozen
AntiChrist
Secondhand Lions
Get Him To The Greek
Altitude
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
30 Days of Night: Dark Days
The Room
Whiteout
Red
Rubber
Spartan
Eden Lake
Gacy
Hereafter
Iron Man II
Hostel Part II
The Wolfman
In Hell
Finding Bliss
Unknown
Day Watch
Thinner
Night of the Demons
Paranormal Activity 2

[honeykid]

That's some list, TUS. It's a magnificent effort thus far. :up:

[nebbit]

Great work :yup:

[Yoda]

Just FYI, I've tagged a bunch of these for the User Reviews (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/users.html) area, but I've still got a ton more to go! I'll go to most of them before long, though. Just can't keep up!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 186: November 2nd, 2010

Hatchet

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/hatchet-poster1-733175.jpg?t=1298441343

Old School American Horror

Still riding the horror train here, I decided to check this one out because I've heard good things about it. I read on the cover, "It's not a sequel, a remake, or based on a Japanese one. I immediately smiled and grabbed it. Beneath the axe that was plastered on the poster it read Old School American Horror. I believe Adam Green achieved what he wanted to, give us a more modern day horror film that was also a throw back to the likes of Jason Vorheese or Freddy Krueger. I do think the film thinks a little too highly of itself in that regard, but I can't deny that I had a bloody good time watching this piece.

We have our character at a spring break party in New Orleans, one of them ain't feeling the good vibes and decides to go on this haunted swamp tour to cheer up, he's morose like that. One of his friends decides to go with him so he is not alone. They meet a bunch of other people that are going on this haunted swamp tour as well, but things don't go according to plan when the boat hits a rock and begins to sink. Of course things go from bad to worse when the old tale of Victor Crowley that was apart of the tour, is actually true. The tourists find themselves trying to survive the superhuman, deformed and blood thirsty Victor Crowley.

I give Green some props for giving us an actual horror film that feel like it belongs in the same grouping as Friday the 13th, a film that heavily inspired this one. The menace, known as Victor Crowley is indeed, in the words of Arnold, "One Ugly Mother Fuc...you know. The story goes like this, he was born deformed and his father decided to keep him out of public, alone out in the swamp, just the two of them. One Halloween night, a bunch of kids decide to terrorize Crowley by throwing firecrackers at his cabin, bad idea since the cabin catches on fire. His father comes home to a burning house and he grabs an axe to break down the door. Another bad move, since Victor is pushing up against the door from the inside. Axe to the face. The legend goes on to say that Victor Crowley is stuck in that night, his spirit in human form, going on a killing rampage.

The film is graphic, lots of blood and limbs being ripped apart. There are quick cuts of buckets of blood just hitting the walls. If you love that type of stuff, this is the film for you. It's full of cheesy dialogue, stupid characters and cliched horror elements. You have your drugs, sex and deaths all rolled into one neat little package. Horror fans will also get a nice giggle here and there when they see some horror legends lending their talents to this film. Tony "Candyman" Todd, Kane "Jason" Hodder and Robert "Freddy" Englund. Green knows where he is grabbing his inspirations from and it's nice to see him acknowledge it. Even the last scene seems straight out of the original Friday the 13th.

The film is not scary, it seems more like a comedy. The dialogue is very sitcom like and Victor Crowley never matches the vibes of Jason or Michael. The guy doesn't have that iconic feel to him and I predict that years from now we won't even remember who he is, but we will still remember Jason. The backstory to him is just too thin and while he does a great job at killing people, it's not enough to make it memorable. Hatchet is definitely a horror comedy, poking fun at the genre itself here and there.

I look forward to the sequel, which will probably suck. This is a film for fans of the genre, hence the generous rating.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 187: November 3rd, 2010

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/percy-jackson-poster_195x288.jpg?t=1298442256

One of my problems with the film is the title, granted it's also the title of the book, it's just too wordy and one of the problems why I think the film wasn't as successful as it could have been. People are put off by long, wordy titles that take two breaths to say, unless you're someone like Harry Potter and you can get away with a long title, I would suggest sticking to something shorter.

Funny I mention Harry Potter since the director of Percy Jackson is Christopher Columbus, who also directed the first two Harry Potter films. I think he did a better job of adapting the Potter films to screen than this one because this my friend, is one big mess of a film. Percy Jackson lacks heart, charm and adventure, instead it gives you a lackluster cast, bizarre plot lines to follow and a cast that doesn't work.

Percy Jackon discovers he is the son of a Greek God, Poseidon to be exact. The God of the sea and brother to Zeus. So Zeus has misplaced his lightning bolt, a source of great power, for some reason that I still do not know, he has blamed Percy Jackson. He tells Poseidon that is Percy Jackson does not give him the lightning bolt in so many days, there will be this great big war. Percy discovers this and is now on a quest to clear his name, find the bolt and stop the war. Oh yeah, his human mother is kidnapped and brought to the underworld, run by Hades, the third brother of the Gods. He now has to find three magic pearls, so he and his two friends can go to the underworld, get his mother and use the pearls to get an easy escape going.

I never read the books, but know enough about them to know that there were some big changes made for the film. I also went into the film knowing quite a bit about Greek Mythology, I studied it. Now, I'm not saying that they have a lot of information wrong, even though the satyrs depicted here are from Roman Mythology and not Greek, I'm just saying they took some liberties. I can accept some of this, as they are indeed adapting this for a film and a family film at that. I do take some points off though because the bulk of the movie revolves around a topic that the writers seemed to have glanced over on a wikipedia page. Moving on though....

The adult actors feel underused, this journey is indeed about Percy, but when you have Steve Coogan playing Hades...put the guy to some good use. The film has some great ideas, but the final product seems hastily executed. For example, Percy finds out he is a demi-god and then all of a sudden he knows how to use all of his powers, with next to no training. We are to assume that one game of capture the flag is enough for him to unlock his powers and all of sudden use them in a heated battle? Where is the struggle here? There is no real obstacle for this character to overcome. The filmmakers seem to think the journey is enough to entertain the audience...wrong.

The film doesn't bother to explain how much we, in our world, see or interact with them, their world. The first scene we see is of Poseidon exiting the water, he is a giant and when he walks on land, he transforms into human size. He passes by a fisherman on the dock while he is gigantic, so we know right from the start that we apparently can see and interact with these Gods. Then the rest of the film seems to ignore this, a battle at the top of the Empire State building, people flying around and giant Hydra monsters turned to stone in the middle of a museum. I was more concerned with people finding these things then the actual events being depicted on the screen.

The film was a disappointment for me and I never even read the books. It lacks depth and seems to be on the Harry Potter bandwagon. I can't compare the film to the book, so I can't tell you if it was the fault of the source material, but I have to think that the filmmakers cut a lot of corners here. Percy Jackson lacks everything that it needed and frankly, should have had. You have a movie about Greek mythology here, why is it that a subject I find so fascinating, turned into a dull movie? Twice this year....

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 188: November 4th, 2010

Night of the Demons

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Night4-2.jpg?t=1298506081

This remake stinks.


This is a remake of the 80's film that I recently watched. I'm going to get it out of the way fast, the movie sucks. It loses the 80's feel and has that direct to dvd vibe about it. The story tries to add a bit of background information, but comes off as thinner than the original and all the original had was a bunch of people possessed in a house.

You have your hot ladies like Diora Baird and Shannon Elizabeth, then you're use to be famous but now does movies like these actor Edward Furlong and of course the newbies. Oh, I can't forget the homage to the original with the cameo by Linnea Quigley, same outfit and all.

The make-up effects are the only thing worth mentioning. The effects, acting and entertainment level were pretty lackluster. I knew going into the film that it wouldn't be great, or hold a candle to the original, but this is a pretty lame excuse to cash in on the name and the already there fan base.

Skip this one, not that any of you would really want to see it. It's a bad imitation of something good.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 189: November 5th, 2010

Splice

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/splice-poster1.jpg?t=1298506176

Meet Dren.

The third act of Splice turns into what I think most movie goers expected from this movie. A monster flick that picks off people one by one. The rest of it is actually concerned with exploring the morals of what these people did and what do we consider a life.

Two scientist are on the verge of a great discovery that would help cure cancer and diseases. The one problem in their way is the company that employs them. They want to use human DNA, the boss won't let them. They do it anyway. We are then introduced to a hybrid creature known as Dren.

Vincenzo Natali directed one of my favourite films, Cube. Here he is given a bigger budget, known actors and more freedom, some people might dispute the last one. Splice is something that he's been working on for awhile now and he is the type of person that wants you to be invested in the film and the characters, not give us some shock piece. Splice deals with some weird topics and it gets a little strange at points, but it never feels like a gross out horror flick.

Dren, the creature, is played by an actress and her performance is enhanced by the use of CGI. It's rare these days to find a film where the big creature isn't totally a CGI creation. Kudos to Natali for going the more realistic route. Dren comes off as a believable character, a child trapped in a rapidly aging body, trying to learn the ways of human life. Elsa, played by Canadian Sarah Polley acts as her mother. Clive, played by Adrien Brody is her boyfriend and co-worker, he has a strained and unusual relationship with Dren.

The film's third act becomes predictable and a more conventional sci/fi monster flick. Things go awry for our characters and they have to suffer the consequences. There are bits of the film that remind you of other flicks, like The Fly or Species, but by the end of it Splice feels like something new. It doesn't go above and beyond the call of entertainment and I wouldn't call it a favourite of mine, but it accomplishes the task.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 190: November 6th, 2010

Takers

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Takers_Poster.jpg?t=1298962823

I should hate this movie...but I don't.

I think the reason I liked this so much more than other people is because I honestly thought it was going to be DREADFUL. After finishing it, I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't end up hating it. I was actually entertained and it kept my interest. The film is predictable as hell, rips off every other heist flick it can get its greedy little hands on, but I actually enjoyed myself.

A group of bank robbers decide to pull off an earlier than expected heist that is offered to them from a former friend who just got out of prison. Their plan is spoiled by a relentless detective and their distrust of their prison pal.

As I mentioned earlier, the film seems perfectly fine taking elements from other heist films like Ocean's 11, Heat and more importantly The Italian Job. Despite these efforts to make the film seem a bit more hip and cool, it does come off as a cheap imitator. The opening heist screams Heat and the main one is a direct lift from Italian Job, one character even says "We're going to go Italian Job on this..." So they even acknowledge this, which is fine by me. If they played it off as their own then I would have been a bit more upset.

The cast has Idris Elba of The Wire fame, he plays the leader of this ragtag group of guys. From what I can tell, his second in command is Paul Walker, who gives us viewers a wonderful scene with his buttocks front and centre. Two rappers, Chris Brown and T.I. are also in the cast, which is where a lot of my concern was. They managed to not get on my nerves, surprisingly. Michael Ealy plays the brother of Chris Brown and he proposes to Zoe Saldana, we are suppose to care for these two characters and hope these kids will make it work.

Then, ladies and gentlemen, I come to the film's secret weapon. Anakin Skywalker himself, Hayden Christensen, who plays A.J. This character is suppose to be the brains behind the operation. What brilliant casting director thought of this one? Who knows, but guess what? As cardboard delivered as it is here, he isn't annoying like he is in other films. He has a scene in which he gets to be a bad ass, so good for him. The juicy role is given to Matt Dillon as the cop on their trail. He is the only one that seems to be giving it his all as well. It might be the character, but everyone else seems to be playing it too cool for school.

Despite my efforts to not like the film, I ended up liking it. So sue me. Even the lame parkour style chase scene had my attention. These guys would be last on my list of guys to call regarding a heist, but they do pull it off. Maybe I have a soft spot for heist films, I shouldn't like this movie, but I did. The entire film I knew what the ending would be and how the events would fall into place. I was even able to call the subplot with the Dillon's partner, played by Jay Hernandez. Takers is a film that many people might call their guilty pleasure. This rating will be generous, I'm in a good mood.

3

[nebbit]

Over half way :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 191: November 7th, 2010

Harpoon

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Harpoon-_Reykjavik_Whale_Watching_Massacre_4.jpg?t=1299022840

This one is going to be short and sweet.

It sucked.

0.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 192: November 8th, 2010

Sexy Beast

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/SexyBeast2000DVD.jpg?t=1299023583

Oh, yeah. Bloody hell. I'm sweating in here. Roasting. Boiling. Baking. Sweltering. It's like a sauna. Furnace. You can fry an egg on my stomach. Ohh, who wouldn't lap this up? It's ridiculous. Tremendous. Fantastic. Fan-dabby-dozy-tastic.

I had high hopes for this one, it seems there are some people here who hold it in high regard. I didn't really know what to expect, I figured it was a gangster flick, but then we start the film off with good ol sexy Ray Winstone sunbathing in a skinny speedo, baking in the sun. I thought this was an odd way to open the film, memorable, but odd. I in fact went into this film knowing nothing about it and realized half way through the film that Ben Kingsley was STILL trying to convince Winstone to take the job. I thought to myself, if this the whole movie?

It wasn't, but it was the most interesting because Kingsley owned the role and the film. He is terrifying and funny. He doesn't seem to be the kind of person that would strike fear into your heart, but once he goes on his rants you quickly quiver. Well deserved Oscar nomination. I don't know how good Jim Broadbent was that year, but I think Kingsley should have taken the little guy home with him that night.

The rest of the film is the job that Kingsley wanted Winstone for. Breaking into a bank vault and taking the loot. The guy who put this plan in motion is Ian McShane, another scary mofo. The film has some odd pacing issues and the content itself is far from what I expected, but the overall experience is still a positive one. I wouldn't hold the film in such high regard, I think if Kingsley wasn't in the film then the whole thing might have crumbled. Sexy Beast is a heist film that focuses more on the reluctant character than the heist itself. Hmm, interesting take on the genre. I looked at the back cover to see what they described the film as and sure enough it was about one guy trying to convince the other to take a job.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 193: November 9th, 2010

Conviction

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/conviction-poster_01.jpg?t=1299623379

Not powerful enough.


The true story of Betty Anne Waters, a working mother who puts herself through law school to represent her brother Ken Water, who has been wrongfully convicted of murder.

At one point in the film, her two sons ask each other if they would do the same for each other what their mother is doing for her brother. The one kid says something along the lines of "You'd throw your whole life away for me?" That's a pretty fair question, since Betty Anne's journey was 18 years. From 1983 to 2001 her main goal was to free her brother, this took a toll on her marriage and her kids. The question I walked away from this film was, could I do that? I have trouble sticking to a health routine, could I really spend 18 years with one clear goal in my mind, something that isn't going to be 100 percent certain?

At points during the film I was moved, mainly the performances from Swank, the always reliable Rockwell and surprisingly Juliette Lewis who steals the scene she is in. The performance from Rockwell further proves to me how underrated and under-appreciated he is in the industry. Swank gives her usual dedication to the role, both throw on accents that apparently aren't really true to form, so I hear. The whole movie feels like an award winning piece, but there are some issues with it that actually make it feel like a wannabe award winning piece.

The film weaves in and out of different time periods for the most part in the first half. It's distracting and doesn't fully give the audience the full weight of Betty Anne's journey. We start off with them as adults, Kenny already convicted, then we shoot back to when they are kids, then we go to before he is convicted, then back to kids, then to convicted, then back to kids, so on. I felt that the film seemed a bit rushed with the journey she takes and I did not fully feel the emotional weight of her undertaking. This was the key part of the film that they needed to hit and I think they missed it.

The film loses points from me due to the fact that the filmmakers chose to ignore some bits of facts regarding the ending because the test audiences found it too depressing. Yes, we know she gets him out because that's part of the story. DNA evidence was was used to exonerate him. The film ends with him out of prison and then some title cards appear to let us know where the actual people are now and what happened afterwards. They choose to ignore the fact that Kenny, 6 months after getting released, died. To me, that puts a whole new perspective on the matter and was a piece of information I think the film needed to give the audience.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 194: November 10th, 2010

Edge of Darkness

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/edge_of_darkness.jpg?t=1299623578

I for one welcome Mel Back.

Mel Gibsons first stab at a lead role since...wait for it....2002's Signs. He went behind the camera for the graphic Passion of the Christ and the beautiful Apocalypto. With Edge of Darkness he's back with the gun in his hand and on a quest to find answers. His daughter was shot dead right in front of him on their porch. The gunman yelled her last name and fled. Craven, being a cop, thought it was for him, not his daughter. He quickly discovers that there was more to his little girl than he originally thought and is determined to find out who killed her and why.

Everyone loves a good mystery film right? A detective is solving clues to find the truth behind some kind of cover up? Edge of Darkness thinks it's one of those films. Gibson goes to people, looking for answers. He gets little in return. People are scared, there is something big going down and only MEL GIBSON can stop it. For Craven, he has nothing left to loose. His only daughter died in his arms, he's not afraid to die. A bit of a revenge tale like Death Wish, but the Chinatown aspect of it sets it apart enough to make it enjoyable.

Gibson throws on a Boston accent, nothing too irritating. There are a few scenes that you'll have to suspend reality for, like when someone gets hit by a car at the right place at the right time. A little far fetched just for the sake of shock value. Edge of Darkness is good enough to keep your attention for the running time, but not great enough to have you keep talking about it days later. It's a well made time waster for those looking for something that will entertain.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 195: November 11th, 2010

Score: A Hockey Musical

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/score_a_hockey_musical_ver2.jpg?t=1299624551

An embarrassment.

Farley Gordon, whom I kept confusing with Charlie Gordon from Flower for Algernon, is one of the most skilled hockey player ever to grace the rink. The trouble is that his parents are against team sports and it takes some convincing for him to get on a team. He dazzles everyone with his stick work and constant scoring technique.

Blah...I'm bored typing out the plot to the film already. Score: A Hockey Musical is a poor mix of bad writing and misguided talent. It's a sad attempt at being patriotic and cute. Blending the nation's favourite sport with song and dance numbers is walking a thin ice, to make matters worse the songs and lyrics are terrible. None of the songs are memorable and every single one sounds exactly the same. This is a feature production and it was outdone by a television show about vampires and demons ten years earlier.

Canadian actor Stephen McHattie shows up at the beginning and recruits the young kid. The character is made to seem like he is important and will be involved somewhat later on in the film. Nope, the character almost disappears other than some random appearance here and there for show. Maybe McHattie figured out what kind of film he was in and quickly tried to get out. The inclusion of Nelly Furtado is a joke and was just a way to help get more Canadian funds in the mix. Look everyone, we got a big Canadian singer in our musical, that means Telefilm can feed us more money.

The romance between the two lead characters is weak and uneven. Not once did I ever buy these two would fall in love, let alone were best friends since infancy. Separate, the actors do well enough, together they drown each other out. Bad chemistry leads to a boring and uninteresting film. The conflict on the ice is mostly about fighting and the hesitation that Gordon has to it. The team doesn't have an enemy team, though we are made to believe the first team they play will make some kind of appearance again. The team never seems to loose either, which makes us wonder where is the real conflict? Do I care if the kid doesn't want to fight? You have a hockey film here with no hockey. Where is the excitement? The drama? The thrills? Everything a hockey movie should have, it's missing here. Hockey takes a major backseat to the musical.

The musical numbers, as I stated before are boring, uninteresting and never catchy. Some of the lyrics are vomit worthy," Hockey without fighting is like Kraft Dinner without cheese/ It's still pasta, but the palate it won't please." Uhh.....what? These songs needed to be reworked over again before they made it past the script stage. The final game, is again, an afterthought to the last song of the film. If the film had concentrated a bit more on hockey and added some dramatic elements to it, it would have been a moderate success, instead of an utter failure.

As a Canadian and an aspiring Canadian filmmaker, films like this are not only an embarrassment, but it makes things harder for us. The film is jam packed with Canadian content to help get the funding needed. I get that, but please, make a good film. It all starts at the script stage and this is where the film should have stayed. I can only dream of the film I could have made with my film school colleagues, if I were given a fraction of the budget this had. The film looks great, but it's because of a film like this that we are more known for documentaries . Name some Canadian filmmakers that didn't go over to the states and make a career. Paul Gross is the most notable one, some small fare people like Don McKellar are nice but he is not a house hold name. Paul Gross is even a stretch. If you want to bring some kind of film industry to Canada from the States (which has sucked away most of our talent) then you have to stop making films like this.

This film claims to be a comedy, but it's not funny. It has comedic, dramatic and musical beats...it misses them all. This is a plea to those who produced this film, contact me. This is an open plea, give me a fraction of this budget and I'll give you a better movie. Sorry, but the truth hurts.

This was also the opening film at TIFF.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 196: November 12th, 2010

Raging Bull

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/ragingbull.gif?t=1299624766

I finally saw this one.

Jake La Motta, his violent temper wins him matches in the ring, but destroys his life outside of it. The film chronicles his life from rise to fame, to the destruction of it all.

Martin Scorsese is my favourite director, so some of my friends considered it a sin for me to have not seen this one until now. Some people here would even say the same thing. The film is highly regarded as one of the best films of the 80's, some people will even go further and say one of the best films of all time. I, not so much.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I did not love Raging Bull. In fact, I was completely indifferent to it for the entire first half. The film finally managed to grab my interest for the latter part of his career/life. To me, the most interesting parts were after his boxing career, when he was a fat rude jerk.

I can't fault Scorsese, because the film is expertly crafted from start to finish. The clever choice to shoot it in Black and White was a right one and the dedication that DeNiro put into the character is amazing. What Deniro did with the character and this role actors can only dream of today. Only one person I can think of today goes to the extreme lengths that DeNiro did for this role and that's Christian Bale.

DeNiro really does shine in the film, while Pesci plays his usual self, this time a little less psycho. He's calm cool and collected and it's nice to see these two together in something fresh and new (for me anyway). Cathy Moriarty is beautiful and puts up with all the crap and physical abuse that is given to her by the abusive and womanizing LaMotta.

I wanted to love it, and I think that's where the big trouble lies. The film didn't do much for me, like I said earlier it didn't really grab me until half way through, and by then I was really bored. Maybe the LaMotta story doesn't interest me enough to care. No where near my favourite Scorsese film, or even my Scorsese/DeNiro pairing. It's far from the worst though as well.

Let the hate begin.

3

[mark f]

Funny to hear you say "fresh and new" regarding De Niro and Pesci since you know it was their first teaming in a movie. I know that usually Pesci plays the paranoid one, but almost nobody's more paranoid and suspicious than Jake La Motta in Raging Bull. Do you think that the fact that you waited so long and it's been praised so much had anything to do with your reaction?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Do you think that the fact that you waited so long and it's been praised so much had anything to do with your reaction?

Without a doubt. I didn't expect the film to really be as great as Goodfellas, which I hold in high regard, but I did expect to find one of Scorsese's better efforts. Everyone I know talks about the film so highly. :(

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 197: November 13th, 2010

Never Let Me Go

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Never-Let-Me-Go-movie-poster-1.jpg?t=1300046603


I wanted a bit more from this one...

I honestly expected this film to be a lot more emotional than what it ended up being, much like Conviction. I went in knowing what the children were, so I don't know if that had any impact on my initial reactions and thoughts. My main problem with it though, and this might be the fault of the source material, was the relationship between Ruth and the other two characters, Cathy and Thomas. I think that if her relationship to the other two were different, I would have had a more emotional connection to the characters and their problem. We see that Cathy likes Thomas when they are kids. We also know that Ruth knows this and she 'steals' him away. Then we are suppose to all of a sudden jump on the Thomas/Cathy love wagon at the end when they have been together for such a small amount of time? I would have rather had Thomas and Cathy get together when they were kids and have Ruth be in love with him too, but neither Thomas or Cathy knew. This would create more of an emotional connection to Ruth, which was missing for me the entire movie. Also, when they go to declare their love, it would feel more genuine and not an excuse to live longer.

Sorry, that was my biggest problem with the film, minor complaints come in because a lot of it was dragging on and it seems to be rather slow. Despite having some terrific performances and great direction. Andrew Garfield continues to impress me, here he plays Thomas as the socially awkward, emotionally unbalanced kid who doesn't really grow up. Carey Mulligan is the anchor of the film, we follow her and feel her pain for both her friends. Keira Knightley gives a good performances as Ruth, the bitchy friend. Her latter scenes are more heartbreaking enough to forgive her for whatever she did prior, even if she is unsure about her actions.

The very thought of your existence is in question here, for these characters. They are suppose to do one thing and one thing only, they can't live normal lives. The story takes place in an alternate universe, so for me that immediately has some kind of disconnection from the beginning. I kept wondering why none of the characters would run. Sure, as kids they are threatened with horror stories, but they are somewhat free when they are older. The bracelets they wear are only shown and never really explained. You are left to assume that those are the things keeping them from running, but this isn't Blade Runner.

A very unbalanced film of emotions. For me, all the right ingredients are there for a depressing movie, but there is that disconnect, which is enough to make it not seem depressing at all. I know I should be sad for these characters and I am, only a little though. I should be upset and full of tears, but I'm not.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 198: November 14th, 2010

Eagles Are Turning People Into Horses

http://www.pooporchocolateblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BriTANickPhoto1.jpg
The two guys behind BriTANick, not the poster :p

I guess I expected a bit more from those involved.

A young man is sick and tired of his girlfriend's annoying laugh, he comes up with this elaborate plan to dump her which involves the insane story about eagles turning people into horses. Thus the title.

This movie that they are pitching seems more like an elongated sketch than anything else. I guess maybe I just expected something more along the lines of Suckerpunch, another film that features both Nick Kocher and Brian McElhaney in the spotlight. Both of these guys are hilarious and have great timing with their comedy. Their writing style is up my alley and I respect the fact that they set out to make their own film. I'm an aspiring filmmaker myself, so I guess I was expecting a little more from this effort, which doesn't really come off as the big picture I was expecting.

Their sketches are hilarious, this was their chance to bring something bigger, better and stronger to the table. I didn't see that with this film. It ran 15 minutes and as a short film it does the job of setting of a problem and finding a solution. The bits that didn't work for me were the comedic parts. I chuckled here and there but never let out a big laugh. I had more fun with their sketches than I did with this, when it should be the other way around. The bigger production, the longer piece, it should have better writing and make an impression on you. It should be something that you want to show to people so that they hire you to write their script, or act in their movie. I didn't see much ambition with this one.

Nothing really creative on the filmmaking side of things, again the film had a 'longer sketch' vibe to it. If I were to make a film I would put more money into the production side of things to make it look cleaner. For me, both the creative and the production side of this film were lacking. I also had no real idea of where things were going when I watched it and by the time it was over I was thinking to myself, what was the point?

I'm still a fan of these guys, they were funny in the film and it did have it's moments. Just nothing to make me remember it, which is the hard part. You need to make something in the film memorable enough to get noticed, I'm afraid this might not do the trick. What do I want to see from these guys? Call my selfish but I would like to see an effort in the form of Derrick Comedy's Mystery Team. Get some money, write a script, a full feature script and put 100 percent of your time and effort into it.

2

[nebbit]

Thanks for the reviews :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 199: November 15th, 2010

Middle Men

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Middle_Men_3.jpg?t=1300171108

Another movie about porn.

The "Inspired By True Events" telling how how one man became filthy rich off transactions between distributors and customers of the porn industry, via the internet. I don't know how true the story is since the man the film is based on is also the producer, I would embellish a few points as well to make my life seem more interesting. Still, the film does an okay job at telling the tale of how he became a multi-millionaire, got in trouble with the FBI and got away squeaky clean while everyone else got theirs.

Luke Wilson plays the lead character, a guy who people go to when they need some help with a business problem. Gabriel Macht and Giovanni Ribisi play two idiots who come up with the brilliant idea of charging people for looking at porn on the internet, apparently one of these guys is the one responsible for writing the code that allows internet companies like Amazon and Ebay, as well as online banks, take your credit card number and bill it. So, the term idiot isn't exactly the right one, but they do manage to screw it up, snort away tons of money and be in debt to the Russian mobster known as Nikita Sokoloff, who can only be played by one man, Rade Serbedzija.

So Wilson is brought into play to help get the business back on track, he is the one who comes up with the idea to be the middle man. Don't make the porn, just be the company who bills the customer. No one wants their bill to say Big Boobs, or some other dirty things I probably can't say here. Why not 24/7 billing, something nice and clean. So they end up raking in millions and millions. Of course they can't make all this money and live a happy life, where is the excitement in that?

So there happens to be an accidental death, the two guys who came up with the idea get more and more paranoid and accidentally end up involved in a child porn site, Wilson helps the government assassinate terrorists and James Caan shows up as a slimy lawyer...are there any other kind though? So a lot of stuff happens in the film and this guys life, things just seem to get outof hand and crazier each day. Which of course takes a toll on his marriage and family back home.

A well put together film with an interesting topic. The overall film feels a bit short in it's reach to achieve success though. Wilson doesn't really stand out even though he is given the chance to. Giovanni Ribisi is the one here who seems to be having the most fun with his role, I would have like him to be a bit more paranoid though. Kevin Pollack shows up in a small role as an FBI agent as well as Kelsey Grammer as a man running for office. As well done as the film is, it doesn't stand out when it should. It becomes mediocre and forgettable as every concludes. The film never got attention and yes it's sad, but it's also evident why. There is nothing special about it. Even if it is better than half the trash we see today.

2.5

[Brodinski]

That sounds like a potentially good movie. The story sounds intriguing to me. I gotta ask, why is it forgettable? Was the story poorly executed? Was the dialogue bad? You told us the acting is sub-par, so that's bad marks in that area, but what made the film forgettable?

[honeykid]

I'd guess it's forgettable beacuse it's sounds like standard tv movie fodder. It was something I thought about The Social Network when I heard about it and, were it not for Hopkins and Foster, what SotL would be. Of course, occassionally this kind of thing finds a home with someone, as Billionaire's Boys Club did with me.

[TheUsualSuspect]

For me the overall film lacked what was needed for it to be great. The relationship with the wife is poorly constructed, he's never home so obviously she wants to divorce him but it never seems to go anywhere other than that. The struggle with his lifestyle versus family is ignored.

The voice over, which I did not mention, is useless. It doesn't really give us any insight to the character, he just explains things that will happen, did happen or are happening.

The story does indeed seem interesting, something that with a better script and a better director could be an incredible film, but everything just feel blah.

The film feels like a cheap Scorsese knock-off, right down to the musical choices.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 200: November 16th, 2010

GUN

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/GUNMoviePoster.jpg?t=1300224622

Terrible film, it's that simple.

I only gave this one a shot because of Val Kilmer, I can't pinpoint the reason why I like him, but I do. He's making it very hard to like him these days with crap like this floating around. GUN is a predictable, poorly acted and poorly shot film that throws no punches and plays it completely by the book. Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson wrote it, which tells me one thing and one thing only. He loves guns.

The film could have and should have given us some insight on the gun running trade, but no, instead it is more focused on a lame story that involves Jackson running guns for some hot bimbo, who works for someone else, while he gets in her pants. Val Kilmer enters the story when he is released from prison and is looking for some work. He goes and meets Jackson because they met once before a long time ago and Kilmer helped him escape a sticky situation.

They act as if they are best friends after they run into each other. I can't tell is Jackson is acting or not, he seems to be playing himself. Kilmer looks rather bored with the work and doesn't try in the least. We finally get to see him act at the very end, but it's way too late in the game for that. Jackson decides to make Kilmer is second in command at one point. Which to me seems odd, why make a guy you've just met your second in command and totally ignore two guys you've known from childhood? It doesn't help that Jackson knows there is a rat in his crew...his crew of like 4 guys, one of which is a new addition. A new white guy addition. Hmm, lets put two and two together here folks.

Kilmer is in fact working for the cops, this shouldn't come as a surprise because it's in the trailer. The film tries to surprise us with this fact, but even if we never saw the trailer, anyone who has seen a movie before can tell. There is nothing exciting, fresh or interesting about this film. Even the sex scene is boring. I think Kilmer did this film as a favour to Jackson, when they became friends on the set of another crappy film they did. Not that Kilmer is making the best of movie choices right now, but this is really pushing it.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 201: November 17th, 2010

Blindness

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/blindnessJulianneMoore.jpg?t=1300433870

I decided to give this one a second viewing...

I hated this film the first time I saw it and I thought it give it another go, just to see if my hate is justified. It was. An epidemic spreads and everyone is suddenly blind with this whiteness. It's apparently highly contagious and the government decides to quarantine these people and shoot them if they were to try to even come close to someone outside of the facility. Moore's character is somehow immune to this blindness even though she has direct contact with those infected. Does she offer to help find a cure using herself, no she goes into the facility with her husband and pretends to be blind. I can get that, after all love is blind. Ha, get it?

Yet her actions within this place are extremely questionable.

There are usually a few films in which I absolutely hate a certain character. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it was Franklin, Marcia Gay Harden from The Mist, just to name two. Yet in Blindness, I hated about a dozen of them. Never in a film as much as this one have I hated so many characters and their actions and Julianne Moore's character has to go down in history as one of my most hated...ever....in the history of film. There, bold statement I know, but it had to be said.

The entire film is suppose to show how we would fall from our current social economic status and destroy our humanity if we were to lose something as precious as our sight. Thus, the film is gritty, unapologetic and disturbing. The film looks great, the cold dark feeling the characters have because they lost their site is present here. The cinematography is beautiful at times and I enjoyed the film for a few minutes. Then a character would do something and I was back to hating it.

The facility is split into 3 wards, we never meet ward 2. Ward 1 has Moore, Ruffalo and Glover. Gael Garcia Bernal is in ward 3 and for some reason has a gun, so he decides to take control of the food supply and threaten to shoot anyone who gets in his way. Keep in mind, they are all blind. He, and his ward, who all support him, will exchange the food for money, jewelery and other possessions. Why? They don't even know themselves, but they want it. What happens when the possessions run out? They resort to sex. Yes, they exchange food for sex with the women from the other wards.

So begins the rape scene in which the women are beaten, one is even beaten to death, all of this happens while Julianne Moore can see and she does absolutely nothing to stop it. Rage...raging. Here is a woman who has such a great advantage over everyone else and she doesn't use it. I became so aggravated with this character and her stupid actions to do nothing that I found myself yelling at the television.

Instead, she goes down on one of them. How easy could it have been to steal the gun, or use scissors or a pipe and kill him? They claim it will start a war, so be it, she can still see. I guess the life and dignity of others mean nothing. She even catches her blind husband having sex with another woman, yet she is too tired to even care. When she finally decides to do something, I've given up already. I can't stress how much I hated this character and her willingness to do nothing.

The film is bleak, yet beautiful in it's cinematography and atmosphere, as I stated before. The deserted streets and apocalyptic feel of the world outside is well done. Yet all that does not make up for such a dirty feeling the film left me throughout it's 2nd act. The characters all 'act' blind and for the most part it comes off believable, but I did not care for anyone in this movie. The husband himself is stupid and weak.

I can't really recommend this flick. It's well made and has the same feel as films like Children of Men, except it's nowhere near the quality of that film. I just can't recommend a film that made me feel disgusted by characters and actions. If you want to go through the aggravation and hate that I did, by all means.

2 <-for the look and accomplishment of the film on a technical level.

[nebbit]

Thanks for the great review :yup: I bought Blindness for $8 a while ago and I found it a bit like you :yup: Julianne's character frustrated me and also how soon the Men turned into animals :eek:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 202: November 18th, 2010

2:22

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/2-22.jpg?t=1300943043

Why is it called 2:22?

That part still alludes me. Why was that the perfect time? They never explain that, or a bunch of other things in this film that tries desperately to be part of the cool kids, but fails to achieve the goal. The problem lies within a script too short and full of useless bits that distract from the overall goal of the story.

2:22 has two recognizable names in it. First is Val Kilmer, the guy who played Batman. He has a small role as a Jeweler who isn't all there. Kilmer seems to be having some fun with the role, which is nice. He has two scenes. Second is Gabriel Byrne, who looks like he DOES NOT WANT TO BE THERE AT ALL. He also has two scenes, very minor, as the detective. Somehow he manages to catch the luckiest break of all time near the end and inexplicably solve the case. I like heist films and when I see one I'm usually rooting for those stealing the loot. I unfortunately couldn't give a damn with this one. Are we suppose to sympathize with the lead characters? One of them shoots a freaking dog for Christ sake.

Anyways, the plot is more absurd. They plan to steal out of the safety deposit boxes from a hotel on New Years. Why they decide to steal at the one time where they know a bunch of people are going to be staying up late? I have no idea. Second, you know a bunch of people are going to be in hotels, so this doesn't seem logical to me. Again, they plan to start at 2:22, no mention as to why. Okay, so we get to the hotel and apparently only two people are working. The guy at the front desk and some guy in the kitchen. Shouldn't there be more staff on one of the busiest nights of the year for hotels?

The guys tie them up and get to work, but ring ring. Someone is calling the front desk for some room service. So we get some comical bits with the thieves having to answer the phone and taking care of the guests needs. One guest is planning on killing himself, they continuously cut to him either going to blow his brains out, or jump off the building. You would figure this has some significance to the plot, maybe his death will alert police to come to the hotel? Maybe he will start a shoot out? Nope, nothing comes of it. Pointless beyond belief.

The second half of the film is them trying to lay low, but failing at it. One guy gets caught and rats on his friend, which leads to a death, some revenge and then the final sequence that is irritating and unbelievable.

The film is set in America, evident by the money they are stealing, yet it is clearly shot in Toronto. They don't even seem to want to hide the fact, we see the CN TOWER design on the front door of a strip club. Ads for Tim Hortons and the TTC is seen everywhere. As a Canadian I couldn't help but laugh at this. If they are going to show a Canadian city, that is very Canadian, set the damn thing in Canada.

2:22 is a poor heist film. You'll get a bit of entertainment from the heist itself, but the film lacks focus and drive. It has no idea what it wanted to do and this is clear by all the useless crap the helps eat up the run time. Two underused actors, Kilmer and Byrne, one who seems to be trying, the other looks like he couldn't give a damn. Skip it.

1.5

[mark f]

I know I've said this before but where the hell are the real movies? You're a flippin' director and you're watchin' this crap? Why?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 203: November 19th, 2010

The Messenger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/messenger.jpg?t=1300944066

Great writing and performances in a sad film.

Here's a film that tugs on the heart strings. How do you train a young man to do such a job? Woody Harrelson is given the difficult task of training Ben Foster to deliver the message of a death to a loved one. The film is slow and packed with emotional performances. I liked it enough to recommend it to people.

Each scene in which they tell the news is different. The first one is the most powerful, in my opinion, because it's our first interaction with them, the people getting the news and it's our first view of the reaction. You want to help them, but realize it's a film and you have no power over any of it. Even though Steve Buscemi is a great actor and he does a great job in a small role here, his recognition is what takes away the power of the scene. He's too famous and we know he's acting, whereas everyone else (save Morton) comes off as realistic. The unknown person is what makes those scenes work.

Foster does a good job here, he tends to lean towards the roles that have a character dealing with anger issues. He always seems angry, I still like him though. Harrelson shines and earned himself a Best Supporting Nomination. He has an emotional scene near the end of the film where he finally breaks down and cries. The whole movie he was the one we could count on holding everything together because he's done this job dozens of times before.

What makes the film stand out, compared to other films dealing with the war of current times, is that it doesn't deal with politics or the war itself. Instead it focuses on the people back home who have to live their lives knowing their loved ones are dead and the men who have the difficult task of having to deliver that dreadful news. The film slows down a bit when they stop delivering the news to people, which makes it suffer a bit.

It has great restraint and writing. A heartfelt script that is brought to live by actors who care for the material. I would recommend the film to anyone looking for something a tad depressing.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

I know I've said this before but where the hell are the real movies? You're a flippin' director and you're watchin' this crap? Why?

The last half of this month and almost all of December are full of real movies. :p

Also, everyone should know by now I tend to watch....crap.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 204: November 20th, 2010

Alice In Wonderland

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/alice_in_wonderland_01.jpg?t=1300944652

Works better as an animated film.

Since Alice does indeed go to Wonderland, the only way to truly bring that world to live is in animation. Tim Burton's version of the film, while it looked good at times, felt drab to me. The overall presentation fell flat and don't even get me started on Alice...

Here we have the Disney film from 1951, way before my time. I was never quite the fan of it as a kid, mainly because it was with a little girl as the lead and as weird as it was, it never really interested me. Watching the film today, I have more of an appreciation for it. While it is nowhere near my favourite animated film, it does fare better the second time around.

Works like this are long gone, the "classic" Disney feel is somewhat dead. I'm not hating on the animated films now...I love everything Pixar has to offer, but that feeling that I had when I watched these movies as a kid is all gone. Gone are the days of the background and certain objects being a darker and duller colour than the colours of the characters or objects they are interacting with. Gone are a lot of musical numbers and song & dance. Is the creativity gone? That's something that could be up for debate. One thing Disney did was take literary tales and throw some cute colours with snappy tunes to get kids to watch them.

I doubt this film is loved by kids, they prefer The Lion King or Aladdin. Alice always came off as a more adult film to me, which might be another reason why I didn't like it that much as a kid and like it more now. The animation is more creative than most Disney efforts. They are in another world, the creativity can soar here. You can't go see an animated film these days without having a big name actor attached to it. Back in these days, the animated world belonged to voice actors. In my humble opinion, the whole things changed with Robin Williams voicing the Genie in Aladdin. Then everyone wanted a piece of the pie.

So my question is this, do you prefer the trained voice actors? Or the recognizable Hollywood star? Does it even make a difference?

Oh, and this knocks another film off mark f's list.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 205: November 21st, 2010

Room in Rome

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Room_in_Rome_2010_Hollywood_Movie_Watch_Online_moviestag.jpg?t=1300996430

More artful than pornographic.

Two women, one Russian and one Spanish, on vacation in Rome meet up with each other and spend a romantic, sexual and truthful night in a hotel room.

These two actresses are gorgeous to look at and we get to see them fully naked. Yippie right? Hold your horses, this isn't some kind of porno film, despite what you may think...or hope. Room in Rome is about finding something special and having to let it go. These two ladies find something special in each other, they share secrets, lies, laughter and love with each other, all in one night.

The entire film has these two ladies fully nude, their conversation is broken up by some random acts of sexual aggravation. The sex scenes aren't really erotic in anyway. The film to me was more of an homage to the beauty of the female body, since there is no plot what so ever. The film feels a little bit like Lost in Translation, if that took place in Rome, with two females, in one room and were always naked. So that's what you can expect from this movie.

The film is shot well and is gorgeous to look at. It helps that the two focal points of the film are beautiful ladies that look stunning and natural. Portions of the film are tedious and some people may doze off if they are expecting some kind of sex romp. I would steer clear of this one if that's what you are looking for.

Room in Rome is a film that I could have gone on with my life without seeing. I'm not particularly glad I saw it, it didn't have any kind of profound effect on me or leave me wanting any kind of resolution for the characters. It's simply a brief look into their lives, where they put everything on hold and enjoy the moment.

Room in Rome is about many things, finding yourself and exploration are key elements. One of the characters claims to be straight, yet throws herself onto the other many times. Sexual orientation is brought up many times in this film, but it's more keen on letting the viewer feel the essence of love between one person and another and not have the issue of gender really get in the way. The two leads were great and believable, bearing themselves completely. It shows trust in the film and the director.

This is a gorgeous film, but it has many problems. One being that it's extremely tedious. For those wanting more out of the story, I can tell you to look elsewhere. The story and plot here is thin as paper. At times it feels like it's going nowhere. Hell, I don't even think it started anywhere. I can say to myself that I will never watch it again, or feel the need to. Maybe the film isn't my cup of tea. I can see where the filmmaker wanted to go and I truly believe he accomplished it, but not all accomplishments are great.

2.5

[planet news]

The entire film is suppose to show how we would fall from our current social economic status and destroy our humanity if we were to lose something as precious as our sight. Thus, the film is gritty, unapologetic and disturbing. The film looks great, the cold dark feeling the characters have because they lost their site is present here. The cinematography is beautiful at times and I enjoyed the film for a few minutes. Then a character would do something and I was back to hating it.How would this be counter-productive to the film's goal of "show[ing] how we would fall from our current social economic status and destroy our humanity"?

Julianne Moore can see and she does absolutely nothing to stop it. Rage...raging. Here is a woman who has such a great advantage over everyone else and she doesn't use it.I dunno. It still felt rather dangerous to me. The Bernal character was implied to have a kind of sight-like hearing.

The film is bleak, yet beautiful in it's cinematography and atmosphere, as I stated before. The deserted streets and apocalyptic feel of the world outside is well done. Yet all that does not make up for such a dirty feeling the film left me throughout it's 2nd act. The characters all 'act' blind and for the most part it comes off believable, but I did not care for anyone in this movie. The husband himself is stupid and weak.I guess I felt rather indifferent to most of the characters, except I did really like the final scenes where they were all living in this nice little community in the house they found. I liked how it didn't just do the typical "Lord of the Flies" thingy without also providing an answer of sorts at the end. There was something very touching about their interactions in that last sequence, which did make me care about them for a little while. Everything about it is different from the rest of the film, and it kind of redeems it in a sense.

But I do kind of get what you mean about hating Moore's character, but maybe I need to watch it again, because I felt like, despite what we might expect, she was rather locked in by extremely volatile people.

Anyways, thank you for the nice review. I'm glad you didn't just complain about how loud it was like Ebert when it was probably very much the point to emphasize sound design in relation to loss of sight, etc.

[TheUsualSuspect]

It showed how we would fall as a society and it showed it well, my problems were mainly with the one person who had such an advantage over everyone else and she basically let other people be sexually and physically abused, even letting one die.

I can see if the other characters had their sight, how it might be a problem, but they didn't and she did. To me, there was no excuse for her to not at least try. How easy would it be for her to just sneak up and grab the gun? Threaten them with the fact that she can see. How would she prove it? Easy, ask them to hold up a number and then she can tell them how many fingers.

I expected them to turn on each other, but her character was just too much for me to handle. I don't know if any other film has gotten me so physically angry like that. :mad:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 206: November 22nd, 2010

Prince of Persia

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/prince_of_persia_poster1.jpg?t=1301285953

There is some level of entertainment to be had.

A big summer blockbuster film starring Jake Gyllenhaal as a Persian, Gemma Arterton as a princess and Ben Kingsley as Ben Kingsley. Based on the popular video game of the same name, Prince of Persia is, sadly, one of the better video game to film adaptations. Yes, I said sadly because this film isn't that great to begin with.

After the kind is killed, Dastan is blamed and he bolts out of the kingdom in the hopes to clear his name. With the help of a princess, they must stop a villain who threatens to change the course of time with a dagger that can....change the course of time. In the video game, the use of the time bit was to fix any mistakes you made, which usually led to the player's death. Here, one man plans on using it to make him king.

Writing their own story and borrowing elements from the game, which has been the case with every video game to film adaptation so far. When they make Metal Gear or God of War, I can only hope they stick to the story in the games. One of the main problems I had with the film was the casting of Gemma Arterton. She has an annoying face, voice and for me is too distracting, in a bad way. She was irritating as the princess and pulled me out of the obvious 'love' story that would evolve.

Gyllenhaal has his chance here to spearhead a career in leading roles of blockbuster films. He does a decent job, he has the charisma, the charm, the physical attributes needed for the task. Someday the emotional depth of a character that is needed will be achieved and then we will have a really fine actor. This isn't his best role, but it looks like the one where he is having the most fun.

It's full of special effects, and has an epic scope beyond the film's actual reach. The story is bigger than the production, yet by the end of it all you do find a small smile on your face. The film manages to entertain you for the running time, despite obvious plot points at every turn. More entertaining than Clash of the Titans and better to look at too. Some nice cinematography here, pleasing to the eye.

Prince of Persia is short on a lot of things, but not entertainment value. It stands in a field of really short competitors, when facing likes of Wing Commander and Super Mario Bros, this film shines. Please ignore the ostriches though.

2.5

[nebbit]

Thanks for the review :) I won't be watching this again :nope:

[Brodinski]

The entire film has these two ladies fully nude, their conversation is broken up by some random acts of sexual aggravation. The sex scenes aren't really erotic in anyway. The film to me was more of an homage to the beauty of the female body, since there is no plot what so ever.

If you read just this, it's the description of a lesbian porn flick. Also the title, totally porn...

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 207: November 23rd, 2010

Shrek Forever After

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/ShrekForeverAfter.jpg?t=1301378775

Why was this one made?

My biggest problem with this so called final installment is the fact that the entire movie does not need to exist. The plot itself is something that screams 'no more creativity'. Let's take a look shall we?

Shrek feels empty inside as he has to do the same old chores over and over again, his life has become so redundant he ends up hating it. He wants things to go back to the way they were before he became and father, met Fiona and knew any of his friends. He wants to be a lonely Ogre again. So he makes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin and he gets his wish. Now we are thrust into an alternate reality where he never met Fiona, Donkey, or his friends. There is a catch though, if he doesn't kiss Fiona before a certain time, he is stuck in this alternate reality. He now must get Fiona to fall in love with him again in order to put things back to the way they were before he was tricked.

To me, once you are telling stories about alternate realities and what ifs...you know the series is done for. For some strange reason they all thought there was one more left in them, sadly the answer is no. I will say this though, the 4th one is indeed better than the garbage known as Shrek the Third, but that isn't saying much. It fails to capture the magic that the first one had, or even the second, which I am also not a big fan of. To me, Shrek was always a one film story. Three sequels later, we are treated to a slowly dying franchise.

The animation is great, as always, if still a bit behind Pixar outings. The kids will no doubt be entertained by it, it's colourful enough to keep their attention, which seems to be the case with every kids movie. It's the adults that have to see it with them (or on their own) who will be the disappointed ones.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 208: November 24th, 2010

I Spit On Your Grave

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/i-spit-on-your-grave-ver2.jpg?t=1301380825

Improves greatly on the horrid original.

The remake of a film that I found to be boring, dull and abrasive. I wondered if they would keep the same feel of the original, which was dirty and inane all in one. The problems in the first film are fixed in the remake, which turned out to be a lot better than I expected. It still has a few drawbacks, which I'll address later, but as it stands, it fits right in with Hostel or Saw and it feels like it leaves the exploitation genre back in the 70's.

Jennifer, a young and beautiful writer heads up to a remote cabin to write her next novel. While there she runs into some unfriendly young men, who brutalize her physically and sexually. They leave her for dead in a river, raped and beaten. She shows up alive and vengeful.

The stupidity of the original is cleverly ignored here. She used her sexuality to lure the men in the original, the same men who just raped and woman and left her to die. Would they really be stupid enough to fall for that crap? Here, she simply takes them by surprise and tortures them. To a degree of 'I need to look away'. There was one scene for me in which I cringed a bit, so bravo on that front. I'll never look at fish hooks and birds the same again.

The problem the film fails to fix is the mentally handicapped character and his resolution. There is some debate about whether or not he should have died or lived in the end, I won't spoil things for those wanting to see, but I will say that I certainly believe that she chose the wrong option here.

The film has some pacing issues, but the content is brutal enough to make you think, or make you cheer. Bravo to Sarah Butler who braves the role, she bares herself on screen and is humiliated. The rape scene is nowhere near as graphic or violent as the original, or even the Last House On The Left remake, but she still deserves and applause for taking on such a role.

The original is a failure, and this one corrects those mistakes.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 209: November 25th, 2010

Simon Birch

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/simonbirch.jpg?t=1301382244

Destiny has big plans for little Simon Birch.

A movie recommended to me last go around, that I did not get the chance to view. This time I've gotten about 75% of the list complete, expect them to pop up a lot more frequently. I can't remember who recommended it, too tired to look back through the old thread, but I will say this...thanks. Seeing it once when I was young, it didn't do much for me, but with a second viewing I can say that I enjoyed it.

A young boy who has a stunt growth problem, is convinced that God has a special plan for him. He's best friends with another outisder, Joe. Due to an unfortunate accident, their friendship is put to the test. Ian Michael Smith, playing the title character, has only one film credit under his name. He succeeds in creating a likable and heartfelt character in Simon Birch. It's extremely hard not to like the guy, he's always smiling.

His friend is played by Joseph Mazzello, better known as the kid from Star Kid. I mean Jurassic Park. The rest of the cast includes: David Strathairn, Ashley Judd, Oliver Platt, Dana Ivey and a small role by Jim Carrey, who plays Joe when he is older.

The film is sweet, at times it feels like it tries a bit too hard to tug on the emotional heartstrings of the audience. I don't like it when a film tries to hard to be depressing at times, it comes off a sad and not in the way the filmmakers intended. Aside from a few parts of the film, it's well acted and directed. It plays a bit too much on the faith side of things, but that's part of the plot.

It's funny and heartfelt, the bottom line is that the film is enjoyable enough to watch. It's hard to find a movie like this anymore, these days the main focus in the film industry is one a dozen different genres, this one seems to be left to the way side. I'd say catch this flick if you see it sitting the the shelfs or pass by it on netflix. It's worth a look.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 210: November 26th, 2010

Unstoppable

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Unstoppable-2010.jpg?t=1301804087

Speed on a train.

Despite the film being cliched to the teeth and having characters that no one could give a damn about, the film will most likely win you over. Tony Scott and Denzel Washington team up yet again in this nail bitter of a thriller that has Washington and Chris Pine doing their best to try and stop an unmanned runaway train. The bigger problem is that the train has some explosive chemicals on it that could level a city or two.

The film is loosely based on real events (aren't they all). Washington plays the old timer who is being forced into retirement to make way for some new blood, new blood like Chris Pine. So already we have some character friction between the two main leads. Cookie-cutter stuff to be honest. They both have their own personal problems, Denzel hasn't been the best father and his daughters don't seem to really care for him. Pine has his wife/girlfriend serving him with a restraining order, to stay away from her and their kid. He's not that bad of a guy, it was just a misunderstanding.

Pine and Washington have some casual banter between the two, bickering at each other here and there, it's all comical for the audience. Meanwhile a train gets loose due to human error. Basically there are two dumbwits who let it go. Despite the train being on a single set of tracks, it manages to cause quite a bit of damage.

Scott employs his usual directing style here, quick zooms onto character faces during basic conversations to somehow make a simple scene seem more energetic. It's not as irksome as in Domino and it actually seems to work for the film. The real stars of the film are the stunt and pyrotechnic team, both working together to create some real entertaining moments in an exciting film.

You'll know how the film ends and you'll know that this one event somehow makes years of problems go away from these two characters. Everyone loves a hero right? So their family problems will be solved, any job problems will be solved and everyone will be happy, if they stop the train that is. The movie is more fun than you'd expect, it''s competently done and has more positives than negatives. I can easily recommend Unstoppable for those looking for some nice escapism.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 211: November 27th, 2010

Faster

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/faster_poster_02-535x793.jpg?t=1301806201

A predictable, yet still fun action film.

Faster is The Rock back in the genre he belongs. After failed and failed and failed attempts at disney kids films, need I remind anyone of The Tooth Fairy, it seems The Rock aka Dwayne Johnson, is back doing what he does best. Faster is a revenge tale. Straight out of prison, a man known only as Driver, goes on a killing spree. His targets? A gang of thugs that killed his brother and shot him in the head, leaving him for dead. Somehow he lived and how he's dishing out his own personal vengeance.

Yeah, so we've seen this type of film before. It also stars Billy bob Thorton in a role that seems as if he were simply chasing a paycheck and Carla Gugino, a detective on the case. Cugino gets very little to do here other than speak her lines at crime scenes and belittle Thorton every chance she gets. Thorton on the other hand has a bit more depth to his character, but it doesn't seem like he cares to explore it.

Oliver Jackson-Cohen plays an assassin, a hired contract killer sent to take out Driver. Who don't know who is employer is, but we can figure it out before their big reveal. He gets engaged to Shannon from Lost and is willing to leave the profession behind...after this one last job. Hmm, another plot device that we have seen before. Basically Faster tries nothing new, nothing at all, and it's perfectly fine with just that. It's more concerned with showing the Rock as a badass. Well, I'm here to say mission accomplished. How many films can you say you've seen where a guy walks into a hospital with a revolver and shoots a man lying on an operating table. This is of course after a knife fight with said man a few scenes prior.

I really like Dwayne Johnson. The man has charisma, he was always one of the more entertaining people in the ring and I'm glad to see him branch out to new endeavors. The man does action and comedy well, he should stick to what he knows best and try to avoid those odd roles, like in Southland Tales. Faster, although cliched, does the job.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 212: November 28th, 2010

Due Date

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Due_Date_5.jpg?t=1301859165

See the trailer? Seen the movie.

Due Date suffers from the same fate the seems to destroy a lot of other comedies. Everything that was funny in the film, you've already seen in the trailer. I can only think of one bit they do in the film that was obviously too risky for a green band trailer.

Due to a misunderstanding, Peter (RDJ) is thrown off of a plane and is officially grounded, meaning he can't take any planes to get home to his pregnant wife who is about to give birth. He decides to accept an offer from Ethan (Galifianakis), who has a car and wants to give him a ride back home. Hilarity ensues, right?

Due Date is a cruder and ruder version of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, which is actually the funnier film. Galifianakis plays the same role he does in The Hangover, an obtuse and weird character. Here he plays up the obtuse and weird a tad more though. Robert Downey Jr. a ruder and cruder version of Tony Stark, minus the genius part. So if you like those aspects, the film will generally please you.

Of course the film wouldn't be funny without some obstacles in their way. Those obstacles are funny, but again, stuff we've already seen. The supporting cast helps the film a lot, Danny McBride, Juliette Lewis and even Jamie Foxx work well in their small roles.

John Candy and Steve Martin did it funnier years ago, which proves to me that comedy is always in the timing and not in the language. I find both Robert Downey Jr and Galifianakis funny, but they both seem to rely on the crude aspect of funny. I would say to stick with the original, although this isn't that bad a film, it just feels like a crude re-hash of something funnier.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 213: November 29th, 2010

127 Hours

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/127_hours_poster_01-535x792.jpg?t=1301896988

A great performance from Franco.

I applaud the film for being as entertaining and engrossing as it could possibly be, considering it's about a guy who gets his hand trapped by a big boulder and he just stands there for the rest of the film. I knew Danny Boyle would be able to pull it off though, the guy is talented.

Aron Ralston, an adrenalin junkie, becomes trapped under a boulder while canyoneering by by his lonesome in Utah. He tries all he can to escape, but it's not enough, until he's faced with the alternative, death. He takes drastic measures to ensure his life will prevail.

I walked away from the film with one thought in my mind, could I do the same thing. Well, for one thing I would be alone, but in this situation, I would definitely try everything I could to try and get out of that situation first. Would I pass out from cutting off my own arm? Who knows, but I do know that the will to live is indeed a powerful thing. The film displays this tremendously.

Beautifully shot and wonderfully edited, the film grabs you from the moments it starts and never lets you go. I was astonished to hear that some people were bored by it. Given the circumstances, I asked what did they expect from a movie about a guy who's trapped by a boulder. The real Ralston has stated that the film is as close to the real thing as anything, it could be a documentary. Another feat accomplished by Boyle and Franco, to truly capture the man in his most desperate moments. Ralston gave his seal of approval to the film and the performance, so do I.

The scene in which he has to cut off his own arm is not as graphic as I expected. It surely does look real enough though. I can easily recommend this film, Boyle delivers another great film that he can add to his impressive resume. Franco gives his best performance to date.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 214: November 30th, 2010

Morning Glory

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/morning-glory-poster.jpg?t=1301897531

What's the story Morning Glory?

I adore Rachel McAdams, which is why I'm not going to be as harsh on this film as I should be. I will watch anything she is in. Morning Glory works, for the most part, if anyone had been cast in the McAdams role, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much as I do, which isn't that much to begin with.

McAdams plays a recently fired television producer who goes looking for a new job and lands the role of working on the low rated morning talk shot, Morning Glory. Jeff Goldblum, who should get more roles these days, hires her. Ty Burrell of Modern Family fame works on the show with Diane Keaton. his ego gets in his way and he's quickly fired, leaving an open spot which is given to a hesitant Harrison Ford. Can these new changes save the show, or make it worse?

I forgot to mention that Patrick Wilson is in the movie because his character is basically useless. He's there for the romantic exchange that is needed in comedies these days which are targeted towards women. Another mistake for the film is Diane Keaton and how underused she is. The film seems to want to focus more on the McAdams/Ford relationship and Keaton is sort of left in the dust. I think the film would have worked more if she were more central to the conflicts, instead of the jealous banter between her and Ford all the time.

You've seen this film before, which is always the case, right? A workaholic must learn to live life a little. Ford, who plays a curmudgeon of a character sees himself in McAdams. He will be nice to her one second and try to get her to steer away from that workaholic path, but in the next he'll go right back to being an ass.

For what it's worth, the film will leave you with a smile on your face. It works on a basic level. If you don't expect much from this one, you'll more than likely come away happy. Nowhere near a perfect movie, but far from a terrible one too. McAdams is sweet and lovable, from an objective point of view. Ford is the legend, he plays that part up well and as I said before, Keaton is just underused too much to really make an impression. Morning Glory might be the cure for a moody person.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 215: December 1st, 2010

Four Christmases

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/fourchristmases.jpg?t=1301898310

Where are the holiday classics?

I decided to kick off the December month with a holiday film, to get that holiday spirit stuff out of the way fast, then to return to it around Christmas time. The first film I chose was a mistake, I give you Four Christmases. The Reese Witherspoon, Vince Vaughn film that has no heart, no laughter and will not be remembered among the Christmas films to watch on the holiday season.

Brad and Kate, Vaughn and Witherspoon, struggle with the fact that they have to meet their families on Christmas Day, once their vacation flight is canceled. The big problem is that their parents are divorced, so they need to make four stops, in one day. Cue the odd family antics and we have a winner.

Witherspoon looks great in this film, that's the first thing I noticed. She looks really fantastic. Vince Vaughn gives us his usual fast ball comedy dialogue to get us to laugh. His comedy is something that is seen in everyone of his films, it's the same every time. You either like him or hate him. I thought he was the best thing in Wedding Crashers, here, not so much. The two leads are outdone by every single supporting cast member there is.

Robert Duvall plays Vaughn's father. He's man's man and adores his other two sons Denver and Dallas. Why do his brother's have names that are cities and Brad doesn't? Well, he changed his name to Brad because he didn't like his city name. Tim Mcgraw and Jon Favreau play the many brothers. The next family sees the always lovely Mary Steenburgen as Witherspoon's mom, Kristin Chenoweth as her sister and Steve 'Donkey Kong' Wiebe as her husband. Fans of Seth Gordon's previous film, King of Kong will notice that Steve Wiebe was in that film going after the Donkey Kong high score. A much better film, even though they are totally different.

So we are then onto Sissy Spacek, Vaughn's mother, who is dating one of his childhood friends, cue more laughter. This is the shortest of the get togethers, probably because the one note joke wasn't working very well. During these family visits, Kate and Brad are learning more than they wanted to about each other. They at first did not want to get married or have a child, but things have suddenly changed for one of them and the other simply can't do it. They had an agreed upon strategy, their relationship was working, now one wants to throw a wrench into the mix.

The last house has Jon Voight, no funny moments here, just serious pep talk. Of course by the end of the film the two get back together and start a new plan, a family plan. Cue the awe moment. Four Christmases is not only a bad Christmas film, but it's a bad film all together. The film has two lead characters you won't like or care for, the film has some forced humour and some wasted talent. Do I need to run down the cast list again?

1.5

[Brodinski]

Anytime I see Vince Vaughn's name on the poster of an upcoming movie I puke in my mouth a little. The guy plays the same role over and over again, going through the same motions and facial expressions over and over. And the worst thing is that he's not even remotely funny, just plain annoying...

[JayDee]

I think you were really rather generous with your rating there. :D A truly dreadful film

I can watch just about any piece of cheesy garbage as long as it's a Christmas film but this was just awful!

It made films like Fred Claus, Christmas with the Kranks and Deck the Halls look like holiday classics by comparison. They at least were a bit Christmassy, as far as I remember there was hardly anything festive about this at all. Hardly any lights or Christmas trees etc

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 216: December 2nd, 2010

My Soul To Take

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/My_Soul_to_Take_2586.jpg?t=1301985960

Hilariously terrible and awesome.

A serial killer known as The Riverton Ripper is thought to have died the night 7 premature babies are born. His body was never found though and 16 years later the 7 kids think he will come back and take their souls.

Wes Craven returns to horror with this mess of a film. The previews for My Soul To Take made it look horrendously bad, but to my surprise I was completely engrossed in the film from start to finish. Even with all the bad writing, acting, horror clichés and downright dumb parts of the film, I still had a good time watching it. So suffice to say, I'd give this film a rating right in the middle.

First of all, the basic premise of the film is pretty lackluster. I give Craven credit for trying to his best to write another feature that has some kind of legend behind the story. The problem is that it's tepid and boring. Secondly, the kids in the film are pretty terrible actors, with the exception of John Magaro as the friend Alex. He plays creepy very well and I wouldn't mind seeing him in more features. What I still don't get though is why the main character Bug, was acting crazy the whole film. It was a useless red herring that bogs down movies like this .

The script feels like a low rent bottom feeder's first draft. Maybe Craven has been out of the game for too long, but this is not the return to form I wanted from him. The film could have been so much worse, but Craven's talents behind the camera (not the pen) saved it from total garbage. There were a few things that surprised me about this film, which is why the rating is a tad higher than what this review would suggest.

First of all, the opening is one of the craziest fastest openings I've ever seen. So much went on so quickly I didn't have enough time to process it all. The deaths in the film happen quickly too. The deaths are pretty lame, stabs here and there, nothing inventive to note of. I was surprised to see how early they started with the deaths too. My Soul To Take feels like a film that wants to end as soon as it starts, so the pacing is off. I sadly, couldn't get into the whole school vibe that was offered here. The sister as the queen bee, the group of 7 being friends and hating each other. No character dynamics what so ever. It was a poor representation of school life for these characters in my opinion.

I saw the film in 2D and am scratching my head over the fact that it was released in theatres in 3D. There were no moments what so ever that would ever require a conversion to 3D. My Soul To Take is not a horror film I would recommend to people. Fans of horror and Craven in particular should stay away. I, for unknown reasons to me, got some fun out of it.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 217: December 3rd, 2010

Love and Other Drugs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/loveandother.jpg?t=1301986999

Poorly Balanced.

My biggest gripe with this film is that it's a mixed bag of forced emotions. First we are introduced to a character who has stage 1 parkinsons. This little known fact gets really emotional during parts of the film and we feel sorry for the characters who are in tears on the screen. Then we have numerous upon numerous sex scenes in which both stars get naked and show their best sides. Now we have awkwardness in the room when you watch it with your girlfriend and mother. Then we get forced comedy that no one seems to laugh at and it you just sit there waiting for the next awkward sex scene to come up. Love and Other Drugs is a well made film, from a technical stand point, but not something that sticks to one specific genre.

The story is cliched, as all romantic comedies (the genre I have decided to give it) are. Two opposite people have one mutual common aspect in their lives. They enjoy each other's company, in this case it's the meaningless sex. She wants to just have a great time and not get emotionally involved with someone who will split the moment they find out they need to physically take care of her later on in life. He is a playboy that finally finds the one person who makes him feel different, and she just happens to be this free spirited chick who doesn't let him get what he wants.

Both leads are great looking and work well off each other. They had great chemistry and their relationship worked for the most part. The comedic relief was in the form of an ugly low life brother who is obsessed with sex. So much that he masturbates to a video of his brother having sex with his girlfriend. Cue laughter?

The film had a lot going on, it felt like a bunch of different movies rolled into one. Each story had their own little arc that eventually kind of went nowhere. The millionaire brother aspect was a bust from the beginning. The viagra parts are hit and miss, then Parkinsons aspect tugs at the heartstrings and then leaves for a bit, only to show up later at the end. There are subplots involving ex-lovers, bosses, drugs in Canada. Too much happening in this movie, you loose focus of what you're suppose to be paying attention to.

Love & Other Drugs is a film that I can recommend to the casual movie goer. It will make some people laugh, cry and cheer for the couple, as most movies try to do. I just found it to be a little disjointed and a movie that's simply known because of naked Hathaway...ain't that great a movie.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 218: December 4th, 2010

Siren

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/movie.jpg?t=1301987449

Terrible from start to finish.

I'm going to wait for Markf to yell at me some more because after seeing this movie, I think I officially deserve it.

Samuel L. Jackson once said in the film Changing Lanes to Ben Affleck...."I Want My Time Back!!" That's how I feel after watching this mess of a horrid film.

Siren is a "horror" film in which three friends take a boat trip to get away from the city. They spot a man on an island and rescue him, he soon dies on their boat. The motor on their boat has been fried and they decide to stay on the island over night. While on the island they run into a woman, who seems frightened, disoriented and can't seem to remember things. She is beautiful and her beauty grabs the attention of the three characters, even the female. She turns out to be a siren, of Greek mythology. A beautiful woman who would lure men to the island through song. Death was brought upon them.

Argh, this film has an interesting cover design. A woman holding a knife in a bikini. There were two other women on each side of her, also in bikinis. The back cover of the DVD has yet another woman in a bikini. The tagline read an exotic tale of lust and revenge. Sex and horror, two great elements that go together. With a little bit a Greek mythology sprinkled in, I expected this film to be at the very least tolerable. Boy, was I ever wrong.

First, if the poster excites you, don't. This is a classic case of never judge a book by it's cover. Siren will try to lure you in with the promise of sex, blood and horror. The film never has a moment of these things. The film starts off with two characters pretending to be strangers, to spice up their relationship apparently. It fails because the woman has visions of some blonde person, whom we later find out to be the siren. They have sex, successfully on the boat, never exciting during the scene though. The siren has many scenes where she kisses the woman, I have no idea why. Maybe it was a cheap attempt at luring in young boys?

The back of the cover on the DVD is also wrong with the description of the film. It says they spot a seductive sultry woman on an island, this is incorrect. They spot some bearded man ramblings on in gibberish. It isn't till they bury him on the island do they see the woman, whom is neither seductive or sultry. We are treated to a bunch of scenes where the characters see things that aren't really there. The question of what is real and what isn't is raised, but you'll never be interested enough to care.

I'm expected to believe that the one character was in love with the other, except that he's upset about a 'hot friend' not making the trip. He also tries to have a three way with this new woman, just more fuel to the aggravating fire. Please, even a fifth grader can come up with better characterization than that. The third character, Marco, was pointless. Just another person to fill up the 80 minutes running time. He likes the woman that is dating the guy, but it never leads anywhere.

How do people die? The siren sings and they bleed from their ears. That is it. Excitement level is at an all time low here. Don't even get me started on the obvious and completely inane ending. This is not a horror film, I would call it suspense if anything...it even fails at that though.

0.5

[Iroquois]

Usual Suspect Theater 3000.

[mark f]

I've never "yelled" at you, even in type. I don't mind being considered your conscience once in awhile though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 219: December 5th, 2010

The Final Destination

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/finaldestination.jpg?t=1302119770

Weakest one in the series.

A bunch of people cheat death at a race track and that pisses him off again, so he hunts them all down with elaborate death scenes.

I loved the first one when I saw it in theatres. I thought it was smart, thrilling and different. Now that we have 4 movies in the series and are about to get another one, I sit back and watch them hoping that maybe they will capture the spirit of the original. It seems that the films are getting worse and worse with each new addition, which is the case with most horror series (look at SAW). The Final Destination, said to be the last one before it made some money and people want to make more, sees a young kid have a premonition at a Nascar race track and he freaks out, saving the lives of a few lucky people. The initial crashes and death scenes are beyond fake with horrendous cgi that made me laugh instead of cheer at the carnage.

The brilliance, in my opinion, of the first one is that all the deaths seem plausible. Each little thing that someone did lead to their eventual death. Something as simple as putting a rag on a set of knives seems fine, but would turn out to be deadly. There was the occasional death sequence that would seem to be death going the extra mile, like a bus hitting a young blonde in the street when the street was a dead end. That was never pointed out, just in the background, something for people to look for. With each additional movie the death scenes had to get more and more elaborate, which in turn got more and more boring for me. They became so elaborate that they would never happen and the believability factor was out the door.

Where are the clues in this one? What made the first film so interesting and fun were the clues that were around that were indicators as to who would die. Totally ignored here and we are left with the one uninteresting and lame character to continue get premonitions. The order in which they die is bogus too, the first one was based on their seating order, a nice twist and here it's simply the guy trying to remember who died when. Again, the fun factor is lost with this one. The film was released in 3D, I had the pleasure of watching it in 2D. So whenever the in your face death scene would happen I thought, hmm, that would look interesting. Horror films use 3D as a gag for fun and not to immerse yourself in the film/experience. So whichever way the technology is used, it's up to you to decide if you like it that way or not.

I enjoyed this one the least out of all of them. I loved the originality of the first, the gory death scenes in the second and the third had some fun parts to it. This one was lame all the way through. You know you have a bad movie when the death scenes aren't even that fun. I would say skip this one and go watch the first one again, even the second. The Final Destination is a mistake.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 220: December 6th, 2010

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/harry-potter-deathly-hallows-poster.jpg?t=1302657270

From a non-book reading perspective.

Harry Potter is in some trouble, his headmaster has been killed, by Snape of all people and the dark lord's powers seem to be rising. Harry must find and destroy as many Horcruxes as he can find, in his journey he learns about the Deathly Hallows.

This entry is probably the best in the series since Prisoner of Azkaban. David Yates, who has helmed two previous installments in the franchise (arguably some of the weaker films) has finally seemed to find his footing with the first part of the last installment. Deathly Hallows is exciting, heartfelt and continues the story at a brisk pace, setting the viewer up for wanting more and ending the film on a good note.

The thing that helps the film most is how much crap has hit the fan. The story has finally moved past the years at Hogwarts routine and has set in motion the final battle that people have been eagerly anticipating. The biggest gripe about the films from the 4th book on, would be that they leave out too much. It's understandable, since the books get bigger and bigger. Splitting the finale into two parts was a good idea, both from a business standpoint and a filmmaking standpoint. It gives the audience more time with Harry and the filmmakers more time to tell the complete story.

I read the first book, it was good. It was gift, but I never actively went out to get the others, so my views on the films are from a film standpoint alone. Deathly Hallows managed to suck me into the world more so than others. No longer are we waiting for our heroes to learn magic spells, they are taking on the bad guys head on. I guess it's true for most series, the darkest is usually the best. Deathly Hallows is probably the darkest Harry Potter film yet because not everyone makes it out alive.

That would be a gripe I have though, a lot of the death scenes are only mentioned or give a brief second on screen. We are with characters we've known from films as far back as the beginning, so I would have liked a little bit more reflection on certain death scenes. Harry has lost his mentor. He must grow up and make decisions for himself, become more of a leader.

The amount of time, care and love put into crafting these films are clearly evident. One only has to look at the recent rushed attempts of the Twilight series to see that the studio and filmmakers are more keen on cashing in on the craze then adapting a story to screen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out ten years ago. This is a franchise that, despite the books not being completed yet, wants to tell an epic story. It took the books ten years to tell the story, so it takes the films ten as well. Deathly Hallows is a great beginning to the end.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 221: December 7th, 2010

Psych 9

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Psych-9-2010.jpg?t=1302658048

Ghost story or Slasher movie?

A young girl gets a night job at an abandoned hospital doing clerical work. She's not alone though, there is another man on level 5 doing similar work. The woman starts to get visions of creepy things in the hospital, which slowly makes her lose her mind. It doesn't help that there is also a serial killer deemed The Night Hawk roaming the streets outside.

Psych 9 goes in too many directions and none of them come to a cohesive ending. Too much is left up being ambiguous and the film asks way too much from the audience. Big plot questions are never answered and we are left to assume things. Psych 9 doesn't know what type of film it wants to be, it's a slasher film at one point, then a supernatural spook story the next. The story should have concentrated on one aspect and stuck with it.

Sara Foster plays Roslyn, the young woman who gets the new job. She hears and sees things that a creepy, this takes a toll on her. She begins to go a tad crazy and we get to know a bit more about her past. Foster does a good job here, she has quite a bit of depth to her character, more than you would expect from a film like this. Her character is a lot like Nina from the recent Black Swan. The man up on the 5th floor is Dr. Irvin Clement played by Cary Elwes. His two most famous roles are Dr. Lawrence Gordon from Saw and more memorably Westley from The Princess Bride. he mostly sits and chats up Foster in this role, nothing too challenging or memorable to comment on.

There is a detective after Night Hawk, played by the always reliable and awesome 24/7 Michael Biehn. Again, underused a bit, his scenes consist of him showing up, asking questions and then leaving. The memorable role here belongs to Foster and the creepy factor belongs to the hospital. Session 9 has some similar elements to this film and they pulled it off better. Here, it feels disjointed which leaves the viewer confused. I sure was at points and even still am.

A lot of the film has that "seen it before" vibe. Its cues are straight from other films. The confusing parts are the faults of the filmmakers, for either not knowing a definitive answer, or never having one. Parts of it feel incomplete and like two different movies. I would have liked them to have left the Night Hawk killer subplot at the door and concentrated the the hospital and how crazy Foster became. I sure as hell wouldn't work at that place at night.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 222: December 8th, 2010

Chain Letter

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/chain_letter_poster1.jpg?t=1302658119

People die from a chain letter......A CHAIN LETTER.

A chain letter is forwarded to a one kid online, he decides to forward it to some of his friends. Those who forward the chain letter live, those who don't die.

The film Chain Letter went wrong in many places, so many that it pains me to write this review because that would mean I have to remember parts of the movie. Here is a film so boring, unimaginative and down right stupid that it almost doesn't qualify as a horror film. The one and only thing the film has going for it are some gruesome death scenes, yet even those aren't that great. So now that I have that one and only positive out in the open, let me address the numerous issues this film has.

For starters, the script. You should always start with the script, or in this case, lack there of. Chain Letter has a simple premise. People are dying because they don't forward a chain letter. Now, the direction the film could have taken and if they did, would have made it a hundred times more interesting, is a supernatural route. Instead, they went with some cult route that has a killer, deemed The Chain Man, tracking these kids down through technology and killing them with his chains. I had a good laugh seeing this monster type on a laptop.

The story had some interesting bits to it that are only mentioned and never explored. The cult of people who hate technology, is shown to us at the last minute and we never get the chance to go deeper than that. This part could have helped the film if they would actually pursue it, but they thought it would be more interesting to bore the audience to death. Both Keith David and Brad Dourif seem to be trying in their poorly written and underused roles, but even they seem to know they are in a stinker of a movie.

We never got the opportunity to like, or even hate the characters. I would hope that the film would at least make some characters clichéd enough to hate, but not here. These characters were so one dimensional I was surprised they got actors at all. I don't remember a single character from this movie, other than the detective and the teacher (David and Dourif). Sadly the film is too boring to even remember characters enough to hate.

There is no climax. The film has no rising action, it goes from one kill to the next. There isn't even a main character. Once you think it's the female, but then we end up spending more time with the detective. The movie doesn't know who's who or where it wants to go. It's a confusing mess, so much that we get to see the title sequence TWICE. We literally get to see the title of the movie pop up in the exact same manner twice. For what purpose? You either start with the title, or end with the title and go to black. Don't do both, then have a few minutes of random images afterwards. It makes no sense.

The writers, directors and producers have no idea what they were doing. The movie is competently done, but what good is that? The only people who seemed to know what they were doing were the special effects guys, dishing out the blood. The Chain Man is forgettable, this movie is a complete mess and I wouldn't even consider calling it a horror film. Delete this Chain Letter and move on with your life.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

As for the Harry Potter films, I would rank them as follows:

Prisoner of Azkaban 4
Deathly Hallows 4
Half Blood Prince 3.5
Goblet of Fire 3.5
Philosopher's Stone 3
Order of the Phoenix 3
Chamber of Secrets 3

[Justin]

Yeah, I'd actually rate them about the same. Good reviews, by the way.

[linespalsy]

I've only seen the first four movies but could you say something more about Chamber of Secrets? It's easily up there with Azkaban for me. I thought the effects and cinematography and the whole visualization of hogwarts were just fantastic. I like the plot of that and Azkaban the best too.

[Sexy Celebrity]

The comedic relief was in the form of an ugly low life brother who is obsessed with sex. So much that he masturbates to a video of his brother having sex with his girlfriend. Cue laughter?

I cannot blame the guy, though. I cannot blame him. This scene shocked the hell out of me, yet it displays so much brutal honesty -- of course you'd masturbate to your brother's sex tape if your brother is Jake Gyllenhaal. Hell, I would have called that Criterion Collection company and had them transfer it to a nice Blu-ray for me and everyone else.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Dobbie the house elf is to the Harry Potter series as Jar Jar Binks was to the Star Wars prequels.

The special effects were hit or miss for me. I think the car sequence is some of the worst I've seen from the series and the acting from the kids wasn't any better than it was from the first film. They certainly are better now.

The running time is a factor against it as well, being the longest Harry Potter film it drags in a lot of places. I find it funny that the longest book (Order of the Phoenix) is the shortest film.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 223: December 9th, 2010

Blackmail

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/blackmail2.jpg?t=1302764231

Silent, no more.

Alfred Hitchcock, a master of the craft, gives us a tale about a woman who kills a man with a knife in self defense. This man tried to rape her you see, so the only logical way to get him to stop was to kill him. A witness to the murder decides to blackmail (get it?) the young woman, played by Anny Ondra.

The film was made in 1929 and sync sound became possible, therefore there were really two versions of the film shot. One with sound, one without. The studio wanted the ending to have sound, mainly because of the success of The Jazz Singer. Hitchcock filmed more than just the ending with sound, which means that this film is generally received as the first British talkie.

Hitchcock used sound to his advantage, emphasizing certain key words such as knife. Different voices wereused for the actors in the scenes because some of them, Anny Ondra, had thick accents. This was parodied in the film about the transition from silent to talkies Singing in the Rain.

The film is not only suspenseful, as most Hitchcock films are, but it asks the viewer some intelligent questions. Alice, the main character, feels guilty about killing the man, but should she? He did try to rape her. I also found the use of sound to be particularly brilliant (even if it's completely amateur). Important plot points are expressed with the aid of sound and since this wasn't used beforehand, it marks quite a distinctive jump in film, for me at least.

Despite all the greatness, the film does drag in a lot of places. It's one of his more ambitious films, integrating sound, but he still hadn't mastered the craft of film making yet. If there were only a few Hitchcock films I could tell you to see, this one wouldn't be near the top of the list.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 224: December 10th, 2010

Triumph of the Will

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/triumphofthewill.jpg?t=1302764867

In the words of Hitler himself..."incomparable glorification of the power and beauty of our Movement".

With the recommendation from mark f, Triumph of the Will found it's way into my dvd player. Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will is a propaganda/documentary film about the Nazi rallies upon the arrival of Hitler.

Unlike a lot of other directors, Riefenstahl had final cut on the film; no interference from authorities. Along with the fact that she was one of the first female directors makes this an astonishing accomplishment.

The opening sequences, which is arguably the most famous part of the film, "Arrival of the Saviour", depicts Hitler arriving from a plane. Many people who were not rich had never been in a plane at the time and this experience was new and exciting. This scene is meant to mystify the audience in glorious awe. Here is a man so powerful he flies above the clouds.

There are numerous shots of Hitler from lower angles, thus giving him the stature of power. These things are done in dozens of films today. The scene in which he stands outside a window is shot from below, showing that he is above everyone else and the people below continue to praise him.

Whether or not I agree with the content being shown, I admire how it is presented. The themes present in the film are power and unity. Hitler uses his power to try and unite a nation to see and pursue his goals.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 225: December 11th, 2010

The Grapes of Wrath

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/grapes-of-wrath-DVDcover.jpg?t=1302765589

It's an older film, so I have to like it, right?

John Ford's The Grapes of Wrath is based on the book by John Steinbeck and is regarded as one of the greatest American films ever made. The film deals with a poor family who are forced off their land and travel to California suffering from the Great Depression.

The main themes within the film centre on depression. This one family depicted in the film speaks for thousands of others with the same problems. The film has some great cinematography, look at the scene in which the entire place is dark, with only one light source being a candle. The entire scene is shot with close-ups, so the audience doesn't get the chance to see what's going to happen. Clearly we aren't suppose to, and this is the director showing control.

The scene with the caterpillar tractors heading towards the farm is a powerful one. We have this one little man standing up to a machine, sadly it fails. The screen itself has the tractor trails super-imposed on it, hitting the audience with the message that nothing is going to stop these men and their machines.

I personally thought the scenes in this film were beautifully shot and powerful. Every character feels real and you connect with them, their poverty. We feel what they feel, we are powerless to stop the caterpillar tractors, just like the characters.

4

[Iroquois]

Who told you to start watching good movies and why didn't they tell you sooner?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Everyone....and they all tried.

[rauldc14]

I can once again state how great The Grapes of Wrath is

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 226: December 12th, 2010

Little Caesar

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/little-caesar-poster.jpg?t=1303096954

Hey look guys, a film from 1930.

Mervyn Leroy's film Little Caesar is a depression theme film that centres around crime and moving up the ladder within the mob. Along with Scarface (1932) and Public Enemy (1931) it was one of the first influential gangster films and starred Edward G. Robinson.

Fitting in with the gangster film formula, Little Caesar has the characters overdressed with overcoats and broad-brimmed hats. Along with many other gangster related films, Little Caesar is about wanting power...and more of it.

Rico, is an ambitious and power hungry character. He climbs up the corporate ladder and wants to be somebody. He's willing to kill anybody that gets in his way. Of course, with everything that goes up, i must come down. The final scene shows the inevitable downfall of Rico.

It's clearly easy to see the influences to the films we see today. Little Caesar had a huge impact on the world of cinema. Without it, we wouldn't have films like Goodfellas or The Godfather. The film, even though looking and sounding very dated, still managed to draw me in, showing me an interesting insight on how the gangster genre got it's jump start.

The performances from Edward G. Robinson is very believable and Glenda Farrell does an admirable job as the sexual ornament between characters. The film still sits in many people's minds, mainly from the memorable line. "Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?

3.5

[honeykid]

I can still remember the first time I saw Little Caesar. I completely agree with your rating, TUS. :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 227: December 13th, 2010

City of Gold

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/city_of_gold.jpg?t=1303620207

Compelling documentary.

City of Gold is an interesting film for the simple fact that the entire film is still images. These still images still manage to tell a story, not in the conventional way that La Jetee does though. Then again, calling La Jetee conventional is a weird statement.

City of Gold, which was nominated for an Oscar and is narrated by Pierce Berton, parallels the universal immigrant experience, focusing mainly on the experiences of the men. It is constructed like a silent film, using visual elements to tell a story with music and narration. The viewer never sees the edges of the still photos, giving the feeling that it goes on forever. As if there are no restrictions, the world they are presenting to us goes beyond the frame of the camera.

This was done with extremely careful framing and composition so the viewer would know what the meaning of the shot was when something is zoomed in on and focused. A documentary doesn't need moving pictures to tell a story, City of Gold is proof of this. The bare essentials of telling a story is there, that's all that is needed.

I found that the fact that they were able to tell a compelling story, only in images, was very innovative. We are so use to seeing moving images and when something like this comes along we are blown away by the simplicity of it all. The simplicity that takes very careful care and extreme attention to detail to make something like this work.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 228: December 14th, 2010

La Jetee

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/la_Jetee_Poster.jpg?t=1303620941

Wasn't this called 12 Monkeys?


Speaking of La Jetee, I watched La Jetee. Another film that is told in still images. The difference is that this one is a dramatic fictional story, set in the future when man is driven underground after a nuclear holocaust. The film is very short, but has enough depth and detail to keep the viewer engaged. This makes it feel grander than one would imagine.

The images are in black & white, giving the feeling of wartime journalism. Humans are sent underground, we are sent back in time. Suspense and drama can be made with the amount of time each shot was held. For thrills, the shot would go by at a faster pace. For suspense it might go a little slower, stalling on some images.

Despite the fact that the film is presented to us with the use of still images, it doesn't feel restricted by it. The film is free to tell the story that it wants to. This film heavily inspired the science fiction films we see today, look at Blade Runner and The Matrix. None more so than 12 Monkeys. Along with the same plot lines, the films final scene is almost a shot for shot re-imaging of La Jetee.

I really enjoyed this short film, it was suspenseful and fresh. It sent chills down my spine to think that this could be our potential future, is we are continuing down the road we are on.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 229: December 15th, 2010

12 Monkeys

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/12monkeys.jpg?t=1303620941

Wasn't this called La Jetee?

12 Monkeys is a science fiction film set in the future, when humans are run underground after a virus breaks out on the surface. Hmm, sounds like La Jattee, only with a different reasoning behind the driving force to send the humans underneath. A man must go into the past to learn more about the virus in order to stop it, but is sent back too far and is committed to a mental institution.

The final scene screams La Jatee and you can't deny the heavy inspiration it was to this one. In the last scene you see young Cole, he sees his death as a man. His entire life if a circle, continuing on and on. The final scene is in slow motion, not only to emphasize the emotion, but because this is the first time both the younger and the older Cole are present together in one scene. We see flashes of this scene throughout the entire film presented in normal speed because it's all in Cole's head. Now we see it actually happening and we see time slow down. It's the part in Cole's life when he ends his adult life and begins his new life, as a child.

I personally enjoyed this film and it ranks as one of my favourite science fiction film to date. Both Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis give career defining performances and the unique vision of Terry Gilliam adds more bizarre depths than any other filmmaker could have done. I still enjoy the film on repeated viewings.

4

[Tyler1]

Great review! I remember watching La Jetee on youtube after discovering that Gilliam's 12 monkeys was inspired by it.

[Harry Lime]

I'm liking this run of films you watched in December, Suspect.

[mark f]

I'm still no Twelve Monkeys fan. There are many films made in the last dozen or so years which people who are in their 20s or so (and Holden :cool:) seem to love which leave me as cold as ice.