Suspect's Reviews

You Me & Dupree (Anthony & Joe Russo)




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

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

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

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

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

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

4/10

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Grindhouse (Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino)




Everything I Could Ever Want And More In A Film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/10

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

__________________

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

GREAT REVIEW!!

__________________

Hot Fuzz (Edgar Wright)





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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

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

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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

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

__________________

Spiderman 3 (Sam Raimi)




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

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

I knew who was the masked girlfriend at first, but I didn't know who was the Santa.

Didn't catch the Alan Partridge cameo.

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

Great review Sussy

1408 (Mikael Håfström)




"The Shining For 2007"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8/10

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

SiCKO (Michael Moore)





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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


8/10

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

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

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


Live Free Or Die Hard (Len Wiseman)





"The Best Action Film Of Recent Years"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your review.

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

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

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

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

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

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

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

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

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

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

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