Suspect's Reviews

Cannibal Ferox (Umberto Lenzi)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspect's Reviews

Superbad (Greg Mottola)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thats not enough for you

You are sick and Twisted

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

Story OF Ricky (Ngai Kai Lam)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm out

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

__________________

Halloween (Rob Zombie)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shoot Em Up (Michael Davis)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like a hoot, thanks Sussy

SAW IV (Darren Lynn Bousman)




"The SAW Franchise finally descends into absurdity"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's funny, thanks for the congrats.


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

We Own The Night (James Gray)




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Across The Universe (Julie Taymor)




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the interesting reviews

No Country For Old Men (Coen Brothers)




"Confident Filmmaking From The Coen Brothers"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juno (Jason Reitman)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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