2006: The Year in Review

Stunning, powerful and profound. Cuaron's latest is an epic piece of film-making, an all-time great slice of sci-fi, that rocks you with its hopeless realism. The trailer for the film is like a microcosm of the movie itself. Take this Clive Owen voice-over (none of which is in the film): "I can't remember when I stopped having hope. Probably around the time women stopped being able to have babies..." It's an absurd concept, the line makes me want to laugh every time I hear it. Then the movie suckerpunches you with the dire reality of its implications.

The cast is great, but it's more a movie built on its direction than its performances, and Cuaron's vision is clear as crystal. A bleak look at the future echoing the problems of the present, the movie drives home the value and fragility of human life by putting it in a vacuum. Any on-screen death is made that much heavier by the realization that for every life lost, there's no one coming to replace them. The population number will drop-drop-drop, and it's never going back up.

A tense, powerful film experience, it's the best movie I've seen in years.

The longer I go having seen this film without reviewing it, the more likely I am to forget exactly I wanted to about it. For a movie I enjoyed so immensely... well, that would be a shame indeed.

This is not the film you might think it is, for a handful of reasons: it has been commonly labelled (by Roger Ebert, most notably) as "a fairy-tale for grown-ups," and literally-speaking, this is only half true. As an Arts student at the University of British Columbia, I spent a fair chunk of last semester studying Hans Christian Andersen -- his life and work, and how the former shaped the latter. Pan is not a fairy tale in this sense: it is a fantasy film (in parts), but there's no discernible moral here. Make no mistake however: it is for grown-ups. This is a deep, dark and disturbing picture. Much like Children of Men, there are many moments in the film so shockingly violent and unexpected, it boggles the mind that that. just. happened. This movie will shake you up, no two ways about it.

The film is in Spanish, and going in I was a little distressed that I would have to read subtitles all through such a visually-rich movie. No matter. By the end I honestly didn't even notice I was reading, which in large part is thanks to a handful of great performances that really draw you in as a viewer. Sergi Lopez is brilliant as The Captain, so fiercely intimidating that he easily and immediately joins the ranks of cinema's all-time great villains. I enjoyed watching the influence his character has Ofelia's imagination, as you can spot aspects of The Captain in both of Doug Jones' characters, the Pale Man and the Faun, both of whom are extraordinary visual accomplishments. And speaking of imagination, here is my sole complaint with the film: it doesn't seem to be able to make up its mind as to whether Ofelia's fantasies are real or not. The conclusion seems to say they aren't, but retrospectively there are more than a few moments that don't make sense without magic.

This is just a small qualm however with an otherwise perfect film. An outstanding cinematic accomplishment. I'm stunned it didn't win the Oscar. Lives of Others must be something special.

Meticulously crafted and perfectly executed, this isn't the type of comedy to beat you into submission with joke after joke after joke. It's slow-build humour based entirely on atmosphere, where the laughs come sporadically in off-kilter dialogue and behavioral quirks. And it works. It works unbelievably well. It builds and builds and builds itself up with escalating levels of pure absurdity until the the climatic scene -- Olive's "talent routine" -- which is such a cathartic laugh-fest that afterwards I was physically exhausted from laughing so hard.

There isn't a weak link to be found amongst the cast. Arkin is ferociously funny, Breslin is perfectly adorable, Collette is quietly convincing, Kinnear is on a complete roll right now, and is there a more versatile comedic actor in Hollywood now than Steve Carell? I'd like to meet him. Carell plays the straightman for much of the movie, but it's not as though the film demands a straight-laced performance to ground the fun -- this is a very heartfelt work, with some surprising moments of potent human drama.

I really don't know how many more superlatives I can throw at it before the point sticks: flat out, this is one of the best of 2006, or any year. Walking out of the movie, my cheeks rosie from fits of hysterics, I had a post-coital glow; that's how satisfying a film this is. For a movie about losers, it's an absolute triumph. Don't miss it.

Plot holes galore, but the film is so tightly wound that you barely have time to notice. Scorcese keeps it moving with a slick style boasting masterful camera movements and editing. But the movie is carried by its excellent performances from the entire cast. Wahlberg really shines, and I was quite impressed with Farmiga as well. It's certainly not the movie Marty deserved his first Oscar for, but it's never too late and this is a worthy effort. Ace entertainment.

A beautiful film, both visually and emotionally. Jackman gives a terrific performance, and Clint Mansell's score is perfect. Amazingly, there's not a single computer effect in the entire film -- the effects were created with micro-photography on chemical reactions. As good as the film is, the graphic novel of his full vision is even better: with his initial bigger budget, Aronofsky would have made a masterpiece. It really stands up to repeat viewings, and the plot becomes crystal clear. If someone you love has recently died, this is a 100.

The second film in a rather short time-frame to tackle turn-of-the-century magicians, and I don't even need to see The Illusionist to know that this one trumps it. Nolan is a true master craftsman, and his tale of magic is easily read as a parable on film-making in the digital age. In the ILM era, is there still room for a little practical movie magic? Certainly The Prestige demands a few whiz-bang effects to reach its end, but they're simple ones, and the real brawn of the film falls to its storytelling. It's refreshing to see a story of rivals where we aren't led to root for one or the other. Both men are flawed, both double as hero and villain. Nothing is clear-cut in this film, and certainly not the trail to the finale.

Is the twist a surprise? For the vast percentage of movie-goers, it likely will be. But to the trained eye? The one who knows to follow the steady hand and not the moving one? It shouldn't be. Look closely, and it's spelled out clear enough. At the halfway mark I knew what the rest of the film would entail, the beauty was in watching it unfold. This is a superb film, and the acting is uniformly excellent. Bale's performance seems disjointed at times, but rest assured that this is intentional, and to excuse it would only spoil the surprise.

There are so many more things I would love to say about the movie, and so much left to discuss and debate. But why would I ruin the magician's secrets? Nolan never ceases to impress, and while you'd think one would have caught on by now, at this point it's impossible to ignore: simply put, this is one of the most talented men in the business. Bring on The Dark Knight, baby.

Harold Crick (Ferrell) rises one morning, brushes his teeth exactly 72 times, and heads out the door for the morning bus. He's off to work as an IRS agent, and as he wades through his pedestrian life, he hears the soft voice of a middle-aged British woman narrating his innermost thoughts. As I write this review, I keep trying to work a sentence along the lines of "his life has become a story," but no matter how I turn the phrase it comes off sounding stupid. This is because all lives are stories, and indeed, that's the point.

You see, little does he know, events have been put in motion that will soon bring about his imminent death. Except he does know, because as we are given this information through third person omniscient narration, so is Harold. Faced with the fact that his life may soon end, he loosens his tie and starts living it the way he's always wanted to. Ferrell is excellent in the role, imbuing his lowly everyman with a plain sweetness that makes him endearing. You really come to care for this man, making the emotional weight of the plot direction that much heavier.

It's a great performance, one of many. Top honours to Maggie Gyllenhaal however, whose Ana really made the film work for me. The film's strength is in how understated it is, as both a comedy and a tragedy. The movie never plays for laughs, or wrings out the melodrama. The performances are subtle and rounded, and the script plays things soft and natural. The comedy is effortless, the drama devastating -- such is life. And at the heart of it all: a girl. A love story that belongs to Ferrell and Gyllenhaal, whose honesty make it one of the best in recent movie memory.

Now I know what you're thinking: two new five-star films in one week? It's like I'm dishing out candy, especially given the fact that for many, neither this nor The Prestige will warrant a perfect score. In the case The Prestige, I admired the perfection of its storytelling: the way it covered even the smallest of details in its dense plot, and the richness of its themes and symbolism. With Stranger Than Fiction, it is the full spectrum of emotion the movie plays to, the way it is plays them, and the feelings it inspires. Intellectually, the film offers the full package. Emotionally, it's an experience. Isn't that what we go to the movies for?

Having never heard -- hell, never even heard of -- the radio show, I approached Robert Altman's latest with great reluctance and much trepidation. "How," I worried, "could I possibly get behind a movie with such a rich, established history that I know nothing about?" Towards the end of the film, Virginia Madsen's character says something along the lines of "When I used to listen to the show, it was like tuning into all my old friends." And that just about sums it up. It's almost as if you know these people from the word "Go," which isn't really surprising -- they all really just embody a wide array of classic character archetypes. But they never feel like cut-outs. The cast is so strong across the board, that each character feels warm and original. I'd list stand-out performances, but it would be an exercise in futility: there are no weak links here (though I particularly enjoyed Kline, Harrelson and Reilly).

Altman's movie isn't flashy or intriguing. But it's entertaing. It's filled with great music. And it's often very, very funny. It's a night out with old friends. Next time, I'll remember to bring some beers. One of the best movies I've seen this year.

Harrowing. I avoided it forever in fear it would be a flag-waving dramatization with a crying bald eagle for a closing shot. For that movie, see World Trade Center. This is something else entirely, and it doesn't feel 'too soon'. If anything, now more than ever it's important to remember just what we all felt that day, so we can retrace the journey from there, to the mess we're in now. The finale is perhaps the saddest, most shocking and heartbreaking thing I've ever seen on film.

Leave it to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu to deliver the goods where Paul Haggis fell on his face but one year prior. It's difficult to ignore the inevitability of Crash comparisons on structure alone, but this sprawling tale is less concerned with the prejudice of culture clashes as it is with the dangers of miscommunication and the borders that seperate us not just as countrymen, but as a people. It's probably the most well-connected of these type of films -- it's far more linear than Syriana and rings far truer than Crash's contrived coincidences. Yes, it has a plot, and yes, it's tied together well, but this is a THEME movie, and must be viewed as such. Why so many people have such trouble grasping concepts like this is beyond me, but enough about that.

The direction that Inarritu turns in here is really beyond impressive, and he really, rather easily, deserved to win the Oscar over Scorcese. Sacrilege, I know, but here's why: While Marty played around in all too familiar territory (albeit more stylishly than usual), Inarritu takes his formula and applies it on a global level, spanning four distinct cultures -- only one of which is his own. This is no small task, and that he pulls off each so profoundly is nothing short of amazing. It's difficult for an outsider to honestly connect with a foreign culture and bring it to life on-screen. The Morrocan scenes would be impressive enough on their own, but coupled with the Japanese story and this becomes a directorial tour de force. It's rather brilliantly shot and scored as well, and that never hurts either.

The cast is uniformly excellent -- it's rare that among a cast so vast there's not a clunker of a performance to be found, but there are really no weak links here. Pitt's is probably the most surprising, and not just because his face is wrinkled and his hair is grey: there's a lot of depth and honesty to his performance that's he's never really showcased before. The DVD cover art has someone (probably Rex Reed) declaring it his finest screen performance. Can't say I disagree. My favourite moments, however, come from the Mexican chapter, wherein nanny Amelia (Barraza), in a bind, has taken Pitt and Blanchett's children to Mexico with her so she can be at her son's wedding without leaving them home alone. As nephew Santiago (Bernal, fabulous as always in what is likely the smallest of the principle roles) drives them back to San Diego afterwards, they hit are hung up at the border, as Amelia does not have a letter of consent for the children. What's so poignant about these scenes is that unlike every other thread, there is no language barrier here -- or shouldn't be, at least. Both of the film's primary border patrolmen (Clifton Collins Jr. and Michael Pena) are hispanic -- they know exactly what Santiago and Amelia are saying. Simply put, they just don't care to listen.

I like that it really came down to this and The Departed for Best Picture: put Pitt aside and it's like Team America vs. the World All-Stars. The right film won, as The Departed is ace entertainment. Still, for my money, Babel was the year's most important film.

The Batman Begins of spy movies, Casino Royale gives us a grittier, more realistic James Bond than we might be used to, but he is a darker man living in darker days. The fact that Craig seemed to be an unconventional choice for the role (internet fan-boys [read: idiots with a keyboard] have been up in arms since his casting was announced) makes this origin story all the more compelling. As Chris Cornell is happy to tell you, you know his name. You know his number. Now meet the new face of a reinvigorated franchise.

This is the best Bond film I've yet seen (and while I haven't seen them all, I like to think I've seen most worth noting), because it takes itself seriously, and is actually serious enough to pull it off. The script pays a lot of attention to character depth, and gives the actors plenty to bite into. Appropriately, the cast list reads like an international all-star team. Judi Dench finally drops the gloves like a knighted actress should, partially because the new direction demands it, but also that her verbal sparring partners can dish as well as they receive. It's good to see Felix Leiter (Wright) back in the picture, even if this film gives him little to do. Mikkelsen asserts himself well in his first major English role, bringing the right amount of menace and desperation to make Le Chiffre one to fear -- his torture scene is actually painful to watch. And Eva Green's Vesper Lynd has to be the all-time sexiest Bond girl: knockout gorgeous with the wits and brains to match, this "girl" is all woman. A female character in 007 film with an attractive personality?? Scary, I know.

Which brings us to Craig. Wow. Haters, eat your hearts out, this is the most complete performance Bond has ever received -- his chops and athleticism are unmatched in the franchise's 20 film cannon. I'll likely take heat for saying it, but a few more films like this and he'll easily knock Connery out of top spot. He carries the film on his back, and it's an absolute triumph, not just for Bond, but any movie. It stands up on its own legs. The only problem? Much like Batman, the end is just the beginning. Shame, too. Things were just getting interesting...

When I first started writing scripts (for real) at the beginning of grade 12, I liked taking pulp serials and twisting them into holes they weren't supposed to fit. First, a detective noir comedy. Then, I began to toy with the idea of supplanting those serials into the high school realm: Manchurian Candidates in the student council elections, political exposés in the school paper... It was interesting, made me feel like the mundane world around me could be more than what it was, and film noir was always the flavour of choice. A year and a bit later and I see the trailer for this flick; I'm smitten. It was as if I had dreamed the thing into reality. Yet sometimes it's best to let your dreams be dreams -- an idea may be cool or good for a laugh purely as an idea, but when put into practice, isn't entirely watchable. Luckily, that's not the case here.

The movie isn't instantly successful, it does sputter out of the gate somewhat. It just launches into its own universe immediately, without a primer, and the transition isn't an easy one. This is a movie whose story and dialogue demand a repeat viewing, if only to further acclimatize oneself with the 'verse and its verses. Luckily, it's quick to find its feet: the first act is subtle and interesting, a slow-burn sizzle that at the half-hour mark clicks into a full-bore blaze, scorching its way to the final frames.

And once it starts, it really fires on all cylinders: the music puts a fresh and modern spin on old themes; the costumes and make-up do the same. The cinematography is phenomonal (and the DVD transfer really doesn't do it proper justice). The dialogue is memorable, quotable, snappy and stylish; the plot leaves no loose ends. What's left? Acting. Gordon-Levitt makes the movie work: it's his vehicle, and when it clicks it's because his foot is firm to the floor. And what else needs to be said about the supporting cast outside of the fact it includes John Shaft himself?

This isn't the type to appeal to mass audiences. It's too "different" to be anything more than a niche-market flick. But what's wrong with that? It does what only a small number of movies attempt these days: it tries something different. Most of the time, it succeeds admirably -- there's just too much to take in in one sitting. Perhaps with repeat viewings my 4 and 1/2 will become a clean sweep. And either it will or it won't, but this is one of the best of the year regardless.

One of the finest pieces of literary cinema in recent memory. "Literary?" you ask. "How so?" It's the type of movie that sits you down, smacks you across the face and screams "Analyze me, bitch!" I so wish I could write an essay on this film, and have it count for something academically, as it's richer and deeper than most of the garbage I'm forced to read. Indeed, I'm almost tempted to write one regardless. I probably won't, but the fact that I could, from watching a horror movie no less, is noteworthy.

The story is pretty standard stuff for the genre: six women gather in the foothills of a remote Scottish mountain range for another installment of their annual extreme sporting challenge. For Sarah (Shauna MacDonald), the trip marks the one-year anniversary of a great personal tragedy, but, in hopes of picking up the pieces of her crumbling life, she journeys on. The proposed adventure: cave-diving in a well mapped and pre-explored system. Feeling it to be too much of tourist trap however, group leader Juno (Natalie Mendoza) has other plans. When disaster leaves them stranded in a cave system no one would think to look for them in, their only option is to keep going in hopes of finding a second entry point -- pressing deeper and deeper into the heart of the earth, and the darkest recesses of the human subconscious.

It's tough to say whether dir. Neil Marshall knew what he was making, and whether any of the many readings the film's ambiguity elicits are at all intentional. It doesn't matter -- the same could be said for Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko (whose "Director's Cut" is far inferior to the initial release), but even that's irrelevant. Once an artist releases a work to the public, it becomes more defined by the reactions it inspires than his or her original intent. That's not to say that this is as cluttered and confusing as Darko, or anything from David Lynch, but there's a definite ambiguity here that demands personal interpretation, and with so many pivotal plot-points that pack so much meaning on a literary level, there are dozens of ways to read it.

Or, don't think about it. One could easily just watch it as a straight-up horror movie, taking everything at face value, and the movie would work regardless. It's taut, frightening, and awesome entertainment. No movie in 2006 frightened me, or made me think, more than this one. It doesn't pack a message, but it's bursting with meaning. All this from a flick built on the same premise as The Cave. Exceptional.

More like this, please.

Painfully funny at times, painfully slow at others. I liked the movie on the whole, but there are some scenes between Ferrell and Reilly on the phone with each other that seem to stretch on forever and have little to no bearing on the plot, serving only to bog down the pacing. It's got a great cast -- so great that it doesn't know what to do with all of them. Amy Adams goes largely wasted, as does Micheal Clarke Duncan, the latter of which is absolutely hilarious in the DVD's deleted scenes and bloopers, but not much of anything within the actual film.

The improv here is top-notch stuff: a dinner table scene in the early-going ends up being the best in the movie, and John C. Reilly is surprisingly excellent as Ferrell's right-hand man, the two actors trying desperately to make each other crack. Yet ultimately, the real laughs belong to Cohen, whose Jean Girard is ridiculously over-the-top, with a terrible accent and a gay husband (Andy Richter). He steals the movie, and Ferrell doesn't put up much of a fight: Will is funny, but his Ricky Bobby is a much more subdued performance than Ron Burgundy -- the low-energy works at times, but occasionally feels listless and disinterested.

If I can fault the movie anywhere else (outside of the some editing problems), it would be the same criticism I gave Dupree: it would be better served by an R rating. Some of the biggest laughs here come just from foul language ("If you don't chew Big Red, well, fuck you."), and some Leslie Bibb boobie-action would have been nice. With the overwhelming success of last year's Crashers and Virgin, I had hoped the adult comedy would come back in full force. Instead we're treated to a bunch of cockteases: movies that want to be restricted, but pull back before they go too far. It's a damned shame.

02/03/07 Update: Having seen the movie a good 20 times since this review, I'm bumping it from a 3.5/5 to four stars. We play it at work all the time, and it just makes me laugh so consistently that at this point, the pacing problems don't even bother me. There's a lot of smart and witty comedy buried beneath its stupid exterior, and it's aasily Ferrell's most quotable film -- which, for him, says a lot. I reference it on an almost-daily basis. Shake n' bake, baby.

Hilarious, if not a bit short. Well, actually, its running time is average, but oh how I wish it was longer. The supporting cast is magnificent, but they are essentially each given one scene to steal and then we move on to the next character. Some of them, particularly Rob Lowe as a hot-shot Hollywood agent and Adam Brody (of 'OC' fame) as his assistant, deserve more.

But it's not their movie, it's Aaron Eckhart's, and as tabacco lobbyist Nick Naylor, he may have finally delivered a performance that will push him past the cusp and into stardom. I certainly hope so. He's got that old-Hollywood look, and the charm and chops to match. The movie is clever and funny, stylish without being overly flashy. Jason Reitman looks like he's got quite a career ahead of him. If you missed it in theatres, don't let it pass you by on DVD. In short? SEE. THIS. MOVIE.

Robert Arctor: "What does a scanner see? Into the head? Down into the heart? Does it see into me, into us? Clearly or darkly? I hope it sees clearly because I can't any longer see into myself."

A story told in subtleties, Linklater's latest rotoscopic masterpiece is a movie that will be seen by few and enjoyed by fewer. In other words, it's not for everyone. There are those who will say it's too slow, or that it lacks direction, plot, meaning. In truth, the plot here is actually rich with twists, and intrigue -- the movie just doesn't care much to tell it. That isn't to say it's not told, just that Linklater's script is more concerned with the way its characters connect inter-personally than how they fit into "the big picture". It's a tough approach, especially considering the movie could have gone in a completely different direction. This could have been a standard Bruckheimer blockbuster -- a thriller rife with political intrigue, a few flashy set pieces and some whiz-bang car chases. All the elements are there, but to do so would betray the story. The movie works as a Polaroid of paranoid times, and it does so by showing us exactly what this future is like, up close and in action. Details, details, details. And yet I keep mentioning them without giving any, so here they are:

It's the near future, and as America's war on drugs sinks to new lows, so too does its war on privacy. To combat a growing number of the population succumbing to addiction at the hands of uber-drug Substance D, the US government has instituted scanners -- 24-hour surveillance agents -- to monitor users in hopes of following them up the food chain -- to dealers, suppliers, growers and so forth, in much the same way as the war on drugs is 'fought' today. Bob Arctor (Reeves) is one such scanner, an undercover agent in so deep he's begun to lose himself. A user of the very drug he's fighting, he lives with two fellow addicts (Downey Jr. and Harrelson), and is trying to pursue something with his libido-less dealer (Ryder). As addiction eats away his mind, things start to get interesting when he is assigned to monitor his own case.

That's all I'll say, and it's all that needs to be said, as there isn't much more to it than that. It's a story told in subtleties, but it's pulled off exceptionally well. How do I know? Despite its implicit nature, I still know what happens before, during and after the brief window of time the film provides. Much like Blade Runner, another Phillip K. Dick story, we are only given the necessary details, and from there are left to draw our own conclusions (of course, again like Blade Runner, these conclusions are rather obvious so long as you're paying attention).

The movie just works on every level: the acting is good (Rory Cochrane in particular), the story is smart and involving, the message is relevant, and the all-Radiohead soundtrack? Stellar. Visually, it's a marvel. Technologically, the rotoscoping has come a long way since Waking Life, the imagery here much richer, and more defined. It's an amazing visual style that (thankfully) serves the movie's purpose, rather than being it. There are more places this technology can take us, and I'm sure in time, Linklater will gladly lead the way.

A visually profound experience ripe with depth and meaning, it's a stunning film, and one of my favourite movies of 2006.

Yagshemash! My name a Borat.

Does the movie live up to the hype? Not really. There are those who will try to tell you that this is the funniest movie of all time, that it's an 11 out of 10. In parts, it is, but the movie struggles with consistency, and half of what makes it so interesting isn't funny at all.

Cohen makes Borat into a very sympathetic character. He has his cultural prejudices, of course, and odd customs, but at heart, he has the naive innocence of a small boy. To see him interact with people in New York, who run screaming from a handshake or reply to "My name a Borat, what's your name?" with "How 'bout you shut the fuck up and mind your own business before I break your face," isn't funny. It's a sad comment on the state of American culture. At the same time, however, part of Cohen's humour (in all his characters) is in getting people to reveal their prejudices by agreeing with the awful things he says. For that, Borat is a solid gold achievement. We see an old man in Texas talk about America's effort to "hang the gays." Directed by Larry Charles, the man behind many an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, it smacks of the same awkward humour. That is, when it's working with real people. There are some moments that are obviously staged, whose energy serve only to weight the film down.

I wanted to love Borat, and in the end I only liked it a lot. A fight scene between Borat and Azamat has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen put to film, but the movie doesn't hit like that consistently enough. If it did, this would be one of the greatest movies of all time. As it stands, it's just one of 2006's better efforts. Nothing wrong with that.

In his filmmaking debut, Montiel draws many an excellent turn from a young cast of actors that I didn't think had performances of this calibre in them -- Tatum and LaBeouf in particular. He wrings his life story for every ounce of drama it's worth, and the film he creates is very worthwhile. Honest, moving, at times shockingly dramatic. There are moments that left me breathless. A very strong debut piece, and I'm excited to see Montiel work with material that isn't his own life.

Stephane: "The brain is the most complex thing in the universe, and it's right behind the nose. (drum roll) FASCINATING!"

Here's a movie I liked very much, but there's just one problem: I can't recommend it to anyone. Well, I can, but there's a fair chance that the majority of those who see it won't care for it at all. His follow-up to Eternal Sunshine, Gondry's latest plays with many of the same themes: love, loss, the mind's inner workings. But if you thought Sunshine was hard to follow, don't even bother with this. Stephane (Gael Garcia Bernal, terrific in a trilingual role) is a creative mind who has trouble differentiating his dreams from reality, and really, you will too. Gondry's visual style bleeds them together to the point where it becomes near impossible to tell what's real and what's imaginary. You can call it incoherent. I call it irrelevant. And really, it is. The skeleton of what little plot there is is still quite easy to make out, and while the dialog is often nonsensical, even that doesn't matter. This isn't a movie built on words or story, or even visual style (though it certainly has plenty of that). It's all about emotion, and with the universal nature of the themes at work here, it's hard not to form some kind of personal connection to the film.

Bernal really is magnificent in the lead role, and his supporting cast never lets him down. It's a bit of an odd movie (did you get that impression yet?) in that it's a French film where the protagonist speaks mostly in English and Spanish, but it works. It all works. The visuals are classic Gondry, and his script is often very funny. As I said, I had a very personal experience with this movie, and if you've ever loved and lost, or felt anything for anyone at all, it's hard not to. Touching and energetic. Give it a shot, and who knows. You just might love it.

Did Clerks need a sequel? Perhaps not, but Kevin Smith sure as hell needed Clerks II. Hands down his most well-rounded and accomplished film to date, it was heart-felt, inspiring, and fucking hilarious. I loved every minute of it.

A dazzling work of strong conviction that, at times, will shake you to the very core. The message is powerful and relevant, and the action takes "bullet-time" to unparallelled new heights. The acting is all strong as well: Portman makes the most of what little she is given to work with -- Evey is an "everywoman" who just seems to follow where the story takes her, while not adding a lot herself. Still, her reactionary skills are impeccable, and she's really quite good. Weaving is given a tougher task: to carry the film on his shoulders, while being completely faceless. His vocal work is stellar, especially a speech towards the beginning consisting almost entirely of "V"-words. Hurt's role is easy -- to just be as Hitler-esque as possible -- and he does it well, nailing so many mannerisms with such a unique voice I can't picture anyone else in the role. The real brunt of the exposition, outside of some V voice-overs, falls on Rea, whose Chief Inspector must go from Key Political Player to Self-Doubter and would-be anarchist within the span of the film. He was believable, he asked the right questions and wore the right bleak expressions, but maybe I'm biased -- I seem to be drawn to detectives.

I had put off seeing it because I wanted to read the book first, but I never found the time and just couldn't wait to see it any longer. From what little of the book I have read, it seems to translate well. The cinematography is very "framed", and having read Watchmen and knowing how dense Moore's works are with a variety of writing styles and presentations, I really appreciated the "lesbian autobiography" of the prison scenes. Perhaps Moore doth protest too much then, in wanting nothing to do with the film. You would think he could only hold a grudge over LXG for so long, but apparently not.

The book is handled with care, and the movie is quite good. It's not always perfect, but it works. It's smart, subversive and a beautiful breath of fresh air. The most profound "blockbuster" in recent memory, and one of the best of 2006.

It's all a little too calculated to feel as impactful as it should, but there's plenty to like about the film, from the acting to the score, and the magnificent vistas captured by the cinematography. It's a deftly made film for sure -- the action is particularly well-handled. It's not that the drama rings false, but the movie lacks the power it should. It's still moving and highly enjoyable, but something's missing, I just can't explain it. DiCaprio owned this year, and Connelly is sizzling hot.

A nice slice of classical filmmaking in the form of a modern thriller. From the costumes to the score, this feels like an old-time movie. There's a little bit too much going with the plot however: Jodie Foster's character is completely unnecessary. Nice to see Chiwetel Ejiofor getting some mainstream work though.

Hardly the mess it's made out to be, the movie isn't really about anything, and the real historically important happenings take a backseat to the high class decadence. ...and that's the point. Like any Sofia Coppola film, it's about how much it sucks to be a girl. Same basic themes as both Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides, which is quite alright. It's slow, it does little to nothing and takes its sweet time doing it, but I'll be damned if I didn't enjoy every minute of it. The cast is beyond superlatives -- Schwartzman is magnificent, and Steve Coogan and Danny Huston are good in anything, no matter how small the role. The soundtrack is killer, and the visuals are lush and beautiful.

The movie took heat at Cannes for failing to guillotine its queen, but at that point, it's beyond unnecessary. Coppola is unafraid to let a shot linger until we've truly absorbed every detail, and on none more so than the very last. It's the perfect ending, a fitting comment that never says a word. It's a slow movie, but moments like that are pure perfection.

The movie isn't stupid so much as it's (mostly) full of stupid characters. It still works though, because dumb-as-bricks though they may be, sadly, they feel all too real. Timberlake proves surprisingly capable as an actor, and Yelchin's performance drives the film's emotional punch. A very well-acted movie all around, from a pretty impressive cast. Though the plot is depressingly straight-forward, Cassavetes has crafted a very engaging film with a strong emotional pay-off. Worth the watch.

The popcorn flick of 2006, thus far. Director J.J. Abrams makes the jump from TV to the big screen without straying too far from his comfort zone: the flick plays pretty much like 'Alias: The Movie'. As the villain, Hoffman is magnetic and the movie bleeds with style and intensity. The best 'Mission' yet.

Looking for something good to rent this Halloween? The search is over. They don't make 'em like this anymore. ...Did they ever? Yes and no. Slither is an insta-classic B-grade horror movie about space slugs taking over a podunk town in Nowhere, USA. Sounds like countless movies from the 70s and 80s, but this one comes packed with many...modern sensibilities, not the least of which being its top-of-the-line make-up and effects work. Add to that the fact that first-time director Gunn, (who also wrote this script, and that of 2004's Dawn of the Dead) has a very, very wry sense of humour, and you've got a veritable Evil Dead on your hands, that will knock you flat with scares and laughs -- both of which come 100% genuine.

Fillion. is. a movie star. It's as simple as that. His Sheriff Bill Pardy owes a lot to Captain Mal Reynolds, but I suppose you can't fault a guy for cribbing his own work. He's funny, and a steady base to ground the movie on. He has a good time. I had a good time. You'll have a good time. Now where's that god-damn Mr. Pibb?

Great music, good stories, well-shot by a more-than-competent director. For a concert film, what more could you ask for?

Painfully funny. Knoxville comes inches from death (literally) on numerous occasions, and it's startling to see how badly they beat themselves up at times -- but the irreverence with which he laughs at his fluke survivals like they're the funniest thing in the world make them just that. There are some hilarious bits here, and although the finale isn't near as good as Number One's was, the sequel starts stronger and carries more momentum into its finish. The best lines come from Spike Jonze and Bam's dad, Phil Margera, but there are so many brilliant one-liners tossed by the way-side all the way through that its difficult to pick them up over the fits of laughter.

Terrific stunts, terrific cameos, terrific movie. A rip-roaring good time at the theatre.

Shades of Cinderella Man loom over this Canadian hockey epic, from the time period (starting off 10 years after Braddock story, but things are still the pits) to the "underdog dad makes good" theme. Thankfully, with the help of some great performances and a unique visual style, it steps out of the shadows and pots a few goals of its own.

As the country's first bilingual film ever, this is a landmark of Canadian cinema whether or not its even good. But it is good. Quite good, mostly in part to the fact that French actor Roy Dupuis has the chops to give the most prolific goal-scorer of all time the gravitas he deserves. This isn't just a movie about hockey, or the Canadiens, but about Canada as a whole -- its people, and its social issues. French-English racial tension is a prevalent issue here, and makes the movie much more enthralling than it would be otherwise.

Visually, the on-ice action is well-shot and there are some very imaginitive sequences to be sure. What I found most impressive, was the grit of the picture -- its dark and dirty soul, and the way it made itself look like a period piece. A strong piece of film-making, whether you care about the sport or not.

I can't say I wasn't under the influence when I took in this flick, but that shouldn't take anything away from the fact that I LOVED it. The animation style (the same motion-capture technology from The Polar Express) is mildly disturbing -- I find the characters look more like re-animated corpses than real children. But that doesn't really matter. What important is this:

This movie is actually quite disturbing for your average kids flick, but the cinematography is stunning (yes, I know it's animation) and plenty of things happen that are just stunningly cool -- the entire climax of the film, for example, is pure adrenaline.

You can spot a number of times where the story cribs liberally from "the classics", but it's all in good fun, and I had a good time placing the voices to their famous faces (could've done without Jon Heder, however).

A bunch of fun, with or without the mary-jane.

The plot is nonsense, but the movie never slows down to let you realize it. It's cool, it's stylish, and does the impossible: makes Paul Walker likeable. Moving at a mile a second, it's pure over-the-top absurdity. And I loved every minute of it.

The second bilingual film to come out of Quebec this year (the first being the excellent Maurice Richard bio-pic The Rocket), I'm a bit torn on whether I really liked the movie or not. Well, that's not true. It was funny and entertaining, but to what extent did I enjoy it? The plot is about as "Canadian" as they get: two officers from neighbouring provinces with sparring ideological beliefs must come together as buddy-cops when a killer begins systematically eliminating those he feels are "destroying Canada's game". From the Lindros trade, and the subsequent move of the Quebec Nordiques to Colorado, to the Gretzky sale, to the ever-present fear that another one of the Canadian teams could be heading south, it's all here. Except, without NHL licensing, it isn't. It's always clear what real-life event is being referenced, but the names have been changed, and this is where I'm torn: the changes are cartoony and obvious -- clever to a point, but too clever? Or not clever enough while operating on the belief it's too clever? I was first intrigued by the concept, but am left with this conflicted feeling of a false reality, that pulls me out of watching the movie in the moment and thinking "Oh, right. It's a movie."

It is fun though, and Huard and Feore have terrific chemistry. I said the same about The Rocket, and it's true again here: considering its budget, this is a surprisingly stylish film. The only other thing I could possibly fault it on would be that some of the Quebecois characters (the coroner, specifically) speak so quickly that even the subtitles fly by before you can read them. Indeed, the movie even makes mention of it:

Feore: "I like to think my French is fine, but I only got about half of what he said..."
Huard: "That's okay, me too. So long as we got a different half, things should be fine."

Did a good job of laying the ground-work for what should be an absolutely epic final chapter, but as an episode in and of itself, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Verbinski starts the film off bigger, broader and better: the first ten minutes vibrate with life and money on a truly epic scale. From the get-go, he had me hooked. But then something happens: somehow, as the adventure is pushed forward, the scope of it all gets lost along the way. The sweeping ariel shots and broad landscapes are dropped in favour of close-up shots that hug too tight.

Story-wise, I like the direction we're heading. The only problem was that the most interesting thread (the power-hungry East Indian Trading Company) was given the least screentime. In the grand scheme of things this is a small gripe, as I have faith that Verbinski and Depp can wrap things up nicely. In the future, this movie will have its ending, and be better for it than it is now.

Edit 06/03/09: Yeah...about that... So At World's End didn't exactly give this movie the wrap it deserved, but even though this movie has no ending and does little to advance the plot between its glorious action sequences, it's still very entertaining in its own right. Davy Jones and crew are spectacular.

A love story about time-travel. Now if that doesn't scream fun for both sexes, I don't know what does. I knew everything that would happen in this movie after the first five minutes. Every - single - thing. Still, I liked it. So what if it holds no surprises? Time-travellers often don't. I enjoyed it nevertheless, as it's one thing to hear and know something will happen, and something else entirely to see it. Cute, harmless, and makes you smile in the way that your lips curl up in one corner while your eyes close slightly and sparkle. A nice date movie.

Great fun, and a lot better than I was expecting. I suppose it helps to spliff beforehand (THC - The Audience is Cookin') but going in sober, I had a great time. The movie plays well to the casual fan of The D (such as myself), with references to most everything the duo is well-known for. The jokes come fast, and even the little details of the movie are funny.

The cameos, which range from esteemed rockers (Meatloaf, Ronnie James Dio, Dave Grohl) to SNLers (Amy Poehler, Fred Armisen) and movie stars (Ben Stiller, and an absolutely fantastic Tim Robbins), all serve to elevate the comedy. Robbins and Poehler particularly are hysterical, the latter of whom is given little to work with but makes the very best of it. There's an energy to the movie that moves it through the few moments where the plot stumbles.

All in all, a very enjoyable film with plenty of laughs. I had very low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. One of the better comedies of 2006. Black has said that the film's failure made him quit screenwriting. This movie's no masterpiece or anything, but that's a shame.

Word of mouth on this one's been fairly positive, and with a trio of Golden Globe nominations, as well as a spot on AFI's Top 10 of 2006, I figured I might as well check it out. I had little hope for the film, but I must say, it's a charming piece, and it's difficult not to be won over.

Directed by David Frankel, a veteran of HBO's Entourage, the movie pulses with the same sense of life as an average episode of the show -- the soundtrack is stellar, the editing is flashy, and thematically, it deals with the seedy underbelly and superficiality of the entertainment industry. Frankel even brings fictional golden boy Vince Cha...err...Adrien Grenier along for the ride. It's a small role that doesn't demand much of him, but he hits the right notes, and dammit, it lets me extend this overwrought comparison! ...Because if there's one thing you can expect from an episode of Entourage it's solid acting, and in that Devil delivers.

Much hoopla has been made over Streep's performance. It's understated menace, and it works, but that's it? Can we all stop splooging over performances just because of the name attached to them? Seriously, I am so tired of Judi Dench getting Oscar nominated every time she makes a movie. But that's another story... Streep is good, but she's not great, and the same goes for Emily Blunt. Hathaway's charms are the reason the movie works. She's sweet, winning and manages to make you care about all the on-screen petty bullshit. It's the kind of performance that goes largely unnoticed in the clamor to celebrate Streep and Blunt's ability to be bitches. Blah. Tucci is great as well.

I liked the movie. It was a solid chick flick. It kept me entertained. But that's all it is: entertainment. A 104 minute distraction. This is one of the best the year has to offer? The Golden Globes have sold this year seriously short.

That's all.

Admirable for the way it presents all the evidence, and ponders several interpretations of Reeves' murder/"suicide" without forcing one on you. It is an unsolved crime, after all. It helps that this is also a well-made film, but compare that one difference to De Palma's Black Dahlia and this is leagues better. The ending leaves a bit to be desired, but Affleck is powerful in a role that somewhat mirrors his own career, and Brody makes for a serviceable lead. Good performances. Good film.

Well that was unexpected.

With Superman Returns, Bryan Singer has succeeded admirably where Ang Lee failed before him. He has created a superhero movie that treats the material with proper respect and gravitas, building a movie not on action sequences, but human drama and relationships. It's not exactly what you'd expect from a movie that looked poised to be 2006's big punch-up thrill ride, but you know what? It works. Truth be told, it works quite well. While Lee became so caught up in making everything about Hulk so melodramatic, Singer finds a perfect balance, with solid comedic relief care-of Huntington's Jimmy Olson, and enough razzle-dazzle action sequences to keep the masses at bay through the character stuff. It still seems to run a little long, however, and there are a few plot points I could do without entirely. More on that later. The positives first:

Hats off to Brandon Routh, who, for the sake of the story, slip into the role like an old shoe who's been doing this for years. It's a daunting role for any actor, but for a total unknown to play it with ease is quite a feat. He looks the part and hits all the right notes -- indeed, he looks it even more than Reeve, whose Clark Kent I always found too stocky and absurd looking. He shoulders the film well, upstaged only by Spacey's Lex Luthor, whose first lines are the best in the movie ("You can keep that. The rest is mine."). He's wonderfully evil and chillingly brilliant, his Luthor a far more calculated genius than Hackman's cartoon character. The retro title sequence also made my inner dork gush inside.

The problems come with the territory, mostly. It's the problem I run into time and time again with Superman, and quite simply its this: how the hell does NO ONE notice he's Clark?? There are a few mind-boggling moments in this film especially -- the stupid hospital sequence, for example -- where Lois would have to be retarded not to notice. Also, Clark "skips town" to "go traveling" for five years, during which Superman disappears completely. They return at the same time and no one notices? HELLO!!?! Gotta feel for James Marsden, too. Seems like the guy can't make it through a movie these days without his wife falling for another superhero. Shucks!

All in all, it was a good movie, one of the few blockbusters of 2006 that didn't leave me feeling disappointed (but then again, I went in with no expectations). The ending seems to leave the franchise in a bit of an awkward position, but I see hope for the continuation of this story. Hopefully in the next chapter, he'll get to throw a punch -- this one could have been called Superman Catches Stuff.

Not the comedy the trailers sell it as (and with that cast, it's something of a shame), this movie caught me completely off-guard. As the title may suggest, it is about a break-up. THE break-up. And while the supporting cast is funny in parts, Vaughn and Aniston play their problems straight, and the movie is much better for it.

This is a rare thing: a romantic comedy that portrays relationships the way they actually exist in reality. It's honest, it's brutal, it's sometimes painfully heart-wrenching. But that's love. The movies know not real love. This one does. Love is fun, a blessing, all that. But it's work. And sometimes, it sucks.

So know what you're getting into before you sit down for this one. I didn't love the movie, but I sure as hell admired it.

True life grit and realism seem to be all the rage in bang-up cinema lately -- a movement away from popcorn surrealism into a more heartfelt and dramatic place. Surely, from a purely visual stylistic stand-point, there is no one better at achieving this than Michael Mann, and Miami Vice is a shining example of this recent trend. With that in mind, there are a few common criticisms that I have seen hurled against this film time and time again that, having finally seen it, I must take issue with:

First, the claim that outside of character names and setting, this movie has absolutely nothing in common with the TV series. False. While the movie takes the concept and supplants it into the present day, thus dropping the stylistic ridiculousness of the 80s for which the series is often remembered, it replaces them with the modern trends and sensibilities I mentioned earlier. Plot-wise, however, it absolutely retains the basic bone-structure of any episode of the series, and indeed I found this to be one of the movies faults -- it episodically launches into things without a primer of any kind. You are either assumed to know what's happening, or are forced to pick it up on the fly. This doesn't kill the movie by any means, but it certainly bogs down the first hour. Which brings me to Common Complaint #2: the claim that outside of the final 10mins, this a dull and dreary bore-snore affair. Again, false. Getting out of the fumbling set-up (or lack thereof) in the first hour, the movie finds its legs. It's taut, superbly acted, visually gorgeous and supremely entertaining. Once the movie starts running, it is simply impossible to turn away.

That these complaints prove false, however, does not a make this movie perfect by any means. The problems again stem from a weak set-up, and this flaw really damages what should be the core of the film: the relationship between Crockett (Farrell) and Tubbs (Foxx). They never really establish any buddy rapport -- we know that they are partners of course, because they walk and talk like two sides of the same coin. The problem is that Mann's script never really picks which one the movie is really about, offering up two halves instead of a whole. While this manages to dodge the trappings of a hero-sidekick relationship, it makes the movie feel slightly unfocused.

If you can stick with it through the first hour (which really isn't too difficult outside of some highly questionable acting from Gong Li), the movie delivers the goods. Props to Mann for another excellent soundtrack (though it seems like every track on the new Audioslave record is in this movie) and assembling another strong supporting cast of vaguely familiar character actors (Barry Henley and Ciaran Hinds in particular). It falls short of Collateral sure, but I still feel the movie gets an unfair shake. It could have been excellent. Instead it's "just" very good.

Plays out like an early prototype for Eastbound & Down. The series is obviously more refined and has much more to offer in terms of a supporting cast but this movie is still damned funny, mostly because McBride wills it to be so. If the show is a story of an asshole struggling to find redemption, then this is one of a loser whose life is spiralling out of control -- they tie together nicely like that. Simmons is an even bigger idiot than Kenny Powers, but McBride is just so likeable that you don't care.

A taut and mostly intelligent 'real-time' thriller about "doing the right thing". I liked this movie, but I'm fully aware of fact that it won't appeal to everyone. Willis packed on some pounds for the role...or maybe he just let himself go: he's finally looking and acting his age, in one of the better performances he's given in a while. I like Mos Def quite a bit, both as an actor and a musician, but his Eddie is at times annoying. Luckily, he grows on you as the film progresses. Perhaps the irritation was intentional.

Is it perfect? No. There are a few predictable "twists", but there are some shockers as well. The story has more than a few cliches thrown into the mix, and you won't take anything away from watching it, but I had a good time. It was a well-made movie, and a good director can make a world of difference.

Suffers a bit from Haggisian melodrama, but this is probably his best screenplay so far (though yes, I am aware that, A. it's an adaptation, and B. he only did touch-ups and revisions). The heavy-handed dialogue rings truer than I'd like to admit, and it's sprinkled with so much natural humour. These people make stupid mistakes and do a few terrible things to each other, but the fact that they're so well-rounded and emotionally honest makes it acceptable, because it's believable that PEOPLE WOULD DO THAT.

But enough about being well-written. It is "the new Zack Braff movie" after all, and people are likely seeing it just for its cast. And if that's the case, great. This is an exceptionally well-acted film as well. I empathized most with Affleck, but even the most seemingly shallow characters (Bilson, by a mile) are plumbed for enough depth to actually care about them. Braff is his cute self all over again, but it's a part with range that he plays well. Strong performances from Wilkinson and Danner don't hurt either, and after a terrible turn in Poseidon, Barrett redeems herself.

It's not perfect, and you can sometimes feel it trying to be, but it is good. Quite good actually, and definitely worth seeing. I went in wanting to like it, and was still pleasantly surprised. It's not often movies are this blunt about people, and the sloppy mistakes we make. It's a messy movie, but it's real; some will complain about a rather open-ended conclusion, but much like Garden State, I found there was nothing left to say. ...much like I've got now.

The third movie in recent memory about a guy who returns home a failure, only to meet a perfect girl who turns his life around. And in many ways, it's the best of the three. Directed by Steve Buscemi, this is a very realistic movie. Even the typically contrived "insprirational sports team speech" at the end comes off as natural. Is Anika perfect? Does she miraculously change Jim's life for him, like Dunst did in Elizabethtown, or Portman in Garden State? No. She's a spark that gets the ball rolling, but as is the reality of the situation, he has to do most of the work himself.

It's a quaint little movie, but it's quite funny. The humour is very dry, and often very black, and I understand that this movie will not be greeted warmly by mass audiences. This is a niche market movie. The good news? If you're in the niche, you'll like it a lot.

06/03/09 Update: I can't objectively rate it any higher than this, because lets be real here, this is not a good movie. But I'd be remiss to go any lower, as I'd be lying if I said I wasn't completely entertained by this flick. A lot of the time I was laughing at the movie, not with it (the guy who plays Eddie Kim is either a comic genius or the worst actor of all time), but there are a lot of memorable moments. The theatrical experience of seeing this movie with an audience was unforgettable. Ridiculous fun.

Below are my euphoric ramblings having just come out of seeing the movie in theatres with a packed crowd on opening night. I overrated it through the roof, but that's just a testament to what an experience it was to see this film in theatres:

The single greatest piece of pure popcorn entertainment I have ever laid eyes on. Would I have loved it as much watching it alone on DVD? Probably not. The theatre experience is what made the movie so great: hooting and hollering as SLJ kills snakes left, right and center; hissing at the screen in anticipation of snakes to come... It was just a blast.

Some of the acting is so bad that it's great (the asian guy playing the crime lord had the theatre in hysterics), but there are some pitch-perfect performances to be found here: Jackson (obviously) does his thing and will likely be remembered forever for this role; David Koechner has some great lines, just having fun with the smarmy pilot persona. Best of all is Todd Louiso as a "snake expert" on the ground, doing his best to guide Sam up in the air. Like the movie itself, he takes himself seriously to a point, but lets loose on lines like "Time is tissue!" and "There's only one man who could amass a collection of snakes like this. He lives...in the desert."

The effects are mostly pretty obvious, but it doesn't effect the movie at all -- some of the attacks really are shocking and scary; many of the death scenes are unforgettable, either because they're incredibly hilarious, or nauseatingly horrific. When the movie earns its R-rating it's at its best: the inevitable sequel will likely be even better, as they'll be shooting for R all along.

Even if you think it will be stupid, I urge you to see this movie. I expected it to be either a wretched turd or an all-time classic, and was blown away. Flat-out, the movie delivers. It's miles better than it has any business being, and is one of the greatest thrill-rides of all time.

The first Pixar movie that I had absolutely no interest in seeing whatsoever. Still, when I did finally track it down, I was glad I did. It's their weakest effort by far, but it's still full of their usual charm. There are just enough laughs to sustain it, and some excellent vocal cameos. The voice acting is terrific (yes, even Larry The Cable Guy), and the animation is beautiful (especially the waterfall sequence). There's not much by way of story -- it's almost a straight remake of Doc Hollywood -- but I dig the universe the movie creates.

It has a very inspired concept, but once the set-up is over, the movie starts to lose its steam. There are some great comedic bits, and it's a somewhat new take on zombies ("somewhat", because Shaun of the Dead had similar ideas in the end -- though this once is set in campy post-war idyllic 50s America). Connolly shines in the titular dialog-free role, and Moss and Baker have the 50s vibe down pat. It is fun, but I just couldn't get into this movie as much as I wanted to. Still, worth a look.

This movie takes place in the future, not so much as a plot convenience, but simply because looking at what Belle and Raffaelli can do with their bodies, it is impossible to believe they could really exist in our world. Do a YouTube search for David Belle; see what I mean. These two have completely weaponized themselves, and the things they can do are surreal. The movie's problem, is that it doesn't let them do those things near enough.

The plot takes place in a near-future Paris, where a run-down, decrepit section of the city has been sealed off from outer access -- but it's all irrelevant. All you need to know is that the movie is essentially Ong-Bak meets Escape From New York. Is it wrong for me to complain there's too much story? Because there is. These guys are the West's answer to Tony Jaa, and once you see them do what it is they do (which is apparently called 'parkour'), you won't care about anything else.

One of Belle's friends, and co-parkour creators, Sebastien Foucan has a villainous role in the upcoming Bond movie, Casino Royale, where in he and Bond will give chase and do battle in this manner. I couldn't be more excited -- unless of course, someone was making an East-meets-West kung-fu movie that saw these guys exchanging blows with Tony Jaa. Wouldn't that be something...

A paint-by-numbers sports flick that still manages to score big from outside the paint. Sizzling with style, it overflows with great music. Lucas has a fire in his eyes behind the bench, pacing with a soldier's swagger across the court from a completely unrecognizable Jon Voight in the final game. It's a good performance ("Are you kiddin' me?!?"), but basketball's the star here -- the people are just along for the ride. Still, while the team on-screen may be changing the game, there's nothing ground-breaking at play within the movie itself. Doesn't mean it isn't fun while it lasts though.

I just have to ask... Between this and 'Friday Night Lights', is there any sport Derek Luke *can't* play?

Disney's got this thing down to science at this point, and many of the strong points to Invincible are true of their other "big" 2006 sports flick, Glory Road. It's all in the music, baby. That said, this sort of treatment is becoming pretty standard, and there's nothing here to really set it apart from, say, The Rookie. Wahlberg is fine as Vince Papale, and as head coach Dick Vermile, Kinnear continues the good little streak he's riding. What really works for the movie is its keen visual style: a lot of the camera work here has been filtered gold, to give it a more 'classic' look (the movie's poster is a fine example of what I'm talking about, but the movie itself does it more subtly). The locker-room scenes have a green tint to them -- the colour of the Eagles themselves. These are small details, but in telling cliche stories like this, you have to do the little things right if you want to get noticed.

A solid flick that will keep you entertained, but it doesn't break any new ground. Seemed a bit short, which means it never overstayed its welcome.

I had lofty expectations for this to be misbegotten five-star gem swept under the rug by a poor marketing campaign and a studio of little faith in the product. It wasn't. Zwigoff's direction is a little clumsy (there are some really jarring edits early in the film that seem amateur for such an established auteur), and the script is all over the place. But there is something very humanistic to its failures -- it has the right ideas, and it really wants to make them work. It's just...flawed.

Is the story half as clever as the satire? No, in fact it's rather obvious. But the satire is superb -- not just on art schools, and art students, but the entire university experience. With a little more focus, this could have been a classic, and while it does fall quite short of the mark, it's still an entertaining watch.

I really admire what Soderbergh was trying to do here, and in terms of style I think he nailed it -- right down to the full-frame presentation. The story just isn't compelling enough. Or rather, it is in parts, but the payoff is extremely weak. It owes a lot to Casablanca obviously, and a 'classic' film with modern talent is always refreshing (Maguire especially is great playing against type). There's just 10mins or so missing from the film's ending: it comes too abrupt to be satisfying. Then again, I feel that way about a lot of old movies...

A compelling time-waster, but that's all it is: fluff. Not Weitz's best work, though you can certainly see why someone would be compelled to make a movie about this. He just gathered all of his friends together from previous projects (Grant from About a Boy, Quaid from In Good Company, Klein and Coolidge from the American Pies) and made an hour and a half long SNL skit. Some of the performances are quite good -- Dafoe especially -- and if Grant never made movies that weren't directed by Weitz again, well, the world might be better for it.

Still, despite its likeable qualities -- its bleakness, its very wry sense of humour -- it's just a puff piece. Nothing more, nothing less. Is it entertaining? Sure. But it didn't need to be made, and it doesn't need to be watched.

No real shocks to be found here, outside of the fact that Mac Guy can actually carry a movie on his back. It's stupid and predictable, but has enough clever dialog to keep it afloat, and you know what? It's actually funny. If you can ignore the fact that one of the main characters is a total Napoleon Dynamite rip-off, this is an innocent little comedy with a solid message and some big laughs sprinkled throughout. Long is just charming enough to pull the film through its sometimes sagging plot-line, and the soundtrack is killer. As a second year Arts student, I found most of its commentary on the absurdity of the university to be fairly on point, and putting Lewis Black in your movie (as the Dean, no less) never hurts ya. All in all, I found it enjoyable, but not particularly notable.

Now here's a comedy that flew right under the radar. It's like Fight Club for laffs -- the kind of movie I knew would be a Todd Phillips flick before his name even came up. Thornton is hampered mildly by the rating (are you spotting a trend here? It seems like I can't get through reviewing a 2006 comedy without saying how better served it would be by a hard R), but could anyone else play this role? I think not. Heder, who I absolutely loathe, is probably at his best here, hitting all the right notes the role demands without approaching the level of suicide-inducing annoyance as seen in Napoleon Dynamite, Just Like Heaven, or The Benchwarmers. That I even managed to enjoy the movie at all -- and not in spite of his presence -- says a lot about the job Phillips has done here. It's a very funny film, bolstered by a stellar supporting cast including David Cross, Sarah Silverman, Todd Louiso, Horatio Sanz, Michael Clark Duncan, and a pinch-hitting Ben Stiller. It's a formula movie through and through, and mirrors Anger Management in a number of ways, but this one is much funnier.

A good little movie that plays a bit like an 'indie' prototype. Reese Holdin (Zooey Deschanel) comes home to her estranged father Don (Ed Harris) after a publisher offers her $100,000 to print a series of love-letters written by her mother and father, both famed novelists. Pulling up to the house, she's met by Corbet (Will Ferrell), a middle-aged guitar player who's looking after the house now that Don's moved his things out to the garage. Falling apart under the weight of his wife's suicide, it's a small but involving role that Harris plays quite well. He gets top billing in the cast, but the movie really belongs to Deschanel, whose Reese is literally in every scene. The movie follows her journey as she struggles to reconnect with a father she barely knew, and must decide whether or not to exploit him for a big pay-day.

That's about it. The overall theme or meaning of the movie is mostly lost on me, but I definitely enjoyed watching it. It's well-acted, and Ferrell is great in a rather subdued role that's touching and funny without ever being loud. There are a few great dramatic scenes in the movie (Reese's final scene with her sick cat is a heart-breaker and Deschanel plays it well), but things get a bit rushed in the final act, as Rapp pushes the movie towards the finish line, dodging a bit of slow set-up stuff that made the opening work so well.

Does this movie demand viewing? No, not really. But I'm glad I saw it.

Should be called G.O.B. Goes to Jail, because that's exactly what it is. Arnett's performance here barely differs from Arrested at all, but who cares? It's a great character and he's hilarious in the role -- let him reprise it to his heart's content.

As for the movie itself? Allow me to offer this disclaimer: I was really high, and it made me laugh. Some of the jokes are obvious and flop, but others work well. Chi McBride's scenes for example, cliche as they might be, are quite funny simply because he wills them to be so. The ridiculous soundtrack that rolls whenever he's on screen and just his sheer presence as a performer make me giggle. Shepard is likable enough to be watchable, and Koechner is wholly wasted. It wasn't all it could have been, but it has enough to be worth a watch.

I just hope the fact this flopped doesn't hurt Arnett's chances at carrying a movie like this again. He's one of the funniest working actors in Hollywood, and deserves to be a star.

Marshall does an excellent job of creating drama with a cast dominated by non-human creatures (Paul Walker included). The dogs are incredible, and when the movie leaves them alone to do their thing, it's tense, thrilling, and deeply touching. The problems lie in the very conventions of movie-making: a movie needs a star, and a star wouldn't be satisified with a book-end role. That's right, the problem is that Paul Walker won't stay the hell out of the movie when he's got no business being there. I just don't care about the humans in this movie (except maybe Bruce Greenwood). I cared about those dogs. And if the movie had stayed on them more, it would have been much better for it.

After watching Harrison Ford embarrass himself in Firewall, I was hesitant to approach a modern actioner starring Michael Douglas. I shouldn't have been. It's a slick, stylish and smart flick, and a lot better than what I was expecting. There's a lot less "Fugitive"-style action than the trailers suggest, and a few logic gaffs in the script, but I liked the insider-angle to Secret Service work that the first 20-odd minutes provided.

An exciting good-time, and nothing more, with a solid cast on top of their games. For what it is, it works.

A cast stacked with comic talent from top to bottom come together to make one forgettable film. There is a certain charm to it though, and some of that talent manages to milk the material for a few good laughs (Gervais in particular). Sure it's predictable, but it's not a particularly bad movie. I was expecting much, much worse. A mildly compelling time-waster.

Sondra: You are a cynical crepe-hanger who always sees the glass half-empty!
Sidney: No, you're wrong, I see the glass half-full, but, of poison.

It's clever enough and the cast is strong, but there's just something missing to this movie. Match Point is obviously a tough act to follow, but I found Allen's shtick a bit tedious in this one. There are only so many times I can stomach hearing "I say this from the bottom of my heart, you are a terrific group of people and a real credit to your race." The relationship between Johansson and Allen seems a bit strained as well -- there is really no reason for these people to be together so often or even enjoy each other's company outside of the fact that the plot demands it. Which would be fine if the plot was exemplary, but it's not. It's rather telegraphed and obvious and at times the characters go against all logic in order to stretch it out a bit further. Jackman was great, however, and it's one of Scarlett's better character performances.

I enjoyed the movie well enough, but I didn't like it a whole lot.

This movie is horrible, and I loved it. It's campy, absurdist entertainment that flies far beyond "over the top", and doesn't apologize for a second of it. Having not seen the original since I was quite young, it was pretty easy for me to watch without comparing the two, and honestly, I think I liked this one better anyways.

I guess the love-affair with this movie all starts with the death scenes: they're bad. Horrendous, even. They make you step back and say "Tell me that this isn't happening." But it is happening. And once you come to terms with it, you'll love the movie for what it is: absurdist escapism. And it is entertaining -- undeniably so.

Stiles gets the top billing over Schrieber, though she mostly just phones it in. It's a fairly weak performance in a movie that it buoyed by otherwise excellent acting: Pete Postlethwaite is a kooky-krazy priest, David Thewlis (who I absolutely adore in just about everything) is a paranoid papparazzo whose life hangs in the balance, and even Michael Gambon shows up as the man who knows how to set things right. The guiding hand through all of it, however, is Schreiber, who is just excellent. Working under a fairly ridiculous premise, he still manages to make his Robert Thorn 100% believable through it all. He's a very talented guy who seems to fly mostly under the radar. Between this, and a great turn in another remake -- 2004's Manchurian Candidate -- here's hoping he starts showing up in more high profile projects. He deserves it.

So don't go in to this Omen expecting to be scared, and certainly don't expect anything great. Just demand to be entertained, and the movie won't disappoint.

A cute movie, and a much improved effort from Dreamworks over Madagascar. It has its moments, with some creative action sequences and clever digs at our materialist social values, but...it's just not funny. I wanted some laughs from this flick, and made due with a few smiles instead. Far from memorable. In fact, I already forget about half of it. The music, all by Ben Folds, is the best thing the movie has going for it.

Fun and cool, but not good. The movie throws plot out the window in favour of bringing in more mutants (notables including Beast and Angel). But it gives them nothing to do. As a movie, the effects are cool and it will entertain you. As a story, it's non-existent. A rich man develops an answer to "the mutant problem" after living with the horrible shame that his son is "one of them". Wait a minute! I think I've seen that one before... I think it was called...X2.

07/08/06: Update! Two and a half months later and this movie is so stunningly mediocre I had forgotten it even existed. This is made even better by the fact that I have a poster for the movie on the wall in my room.

The transition from stop-motion claymation to computer animation yields a disappointing effort from Aardman. They manage to retain their trademark character design, and their wit shines through from time to time, but the efforts are wasted on this story. Call it their Cars, except the world created here isn't nearly as interesting as Lasseter's. It's certainly not bad, but with the talent involved, I expected a lot more.

A fantastic final act (that isn't as unpredictable as it would like to think it is -- movies don't spend 15mins telling a story about a kid who looks like Josh Hartnett for nothing) can't make up for an absolutely terrible first hour. I was very tempted to turn the movie off after 40mins -- it was clumsy, it tried too hard to be witty, and I just didn't give a damn about any of the characters. I realize the movie needs most of the plot points of the opening act for the pay-off to work, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been pulled off much better.

Kingsley and Freeman are sleep-walking, but Hartnett was a pleasant surprise, giving what is likely the best performance of his rather uninspired career.

Slick, but ultimately disappointing.

I had a decent amount of fun with this movie the first time out. It's a rather weak script, but the cast elevates the material to watchable levels, because they're all better than this. Whenever I catch pieces of it on Movie Central though, I find it excruciatingly cliche. It probably could have been better with a hard R-rating, but as is it tries to push the envelope here and there while playing it safe enough for a PG-13. Yawn. Not as bad as its reputation, but not good either.

Sad. The last five minutes of the movie undermine its own masterstroke, but how often do you get to use the word "masterstroke" in regards to a Sandler film? It's good, but not on a comedic level, despite how hard it tries to be. No, this is a surprisingly affecting movie dramatically that takes some very bleak turns (even if it later undermines them). Winkler, Walken and Beckinsale are all quite good. The make-up is excellent. For an Angry-Asshole-Manchild Sandler movie, it has a lot of heart.

I don't even know where to begin.

A throw-back to 40s classicism, De Palma's latest doesn't try to bring modern sensibilities to noir themes, a la Hanson's L.A. Confidential. No, the Dahlia is much more focussed on actually being from the 40s: the script, the score, the sets, the acting. And thus, I'm torn. It's as if the parts of the movie that don't work are almost bad on purpose, the painfully wooden acting a tacit of the style. That's not really a viable excuse, but I don't know how else to explain it, as what works here works so well it's simply baffling the movie could be so muddled and split on its own identity. There's too much side-action here, with some stupid crap about boxing and far too many threads based on forgettable characters we see or hear about once and are expected to remember vividly more than an hour later.

What works is the actual police story: the movie finally clicks into gear for the final act, when Hartnett begins to really act like a detective. It's compelling fun, but it's far too late. Earlier, when he and Eckhart are working cases and investigating the Dahlia murder, there's enough gravity and intrigue to build a movie off of. Unfortunately, the script would rather do other things.

Performance-wise, it's a rather mixed bag. Hartnett's fit with the material seems to swing from scene to scene. He's perfect in places, but awkward in others, and some of his narration is flat-out terrible. Eckhart does better with his limited screen-time (for the most part), but the script revs him up too often to serve no purpose, and it starts to become a one-note performance, lacking the character dimensions of Crowe's Bud White in Confidential -- this is more a fault of weak writing than anything, and I don't mean to fault him for it, but it did start to get grating. Johansson is palpable, and she certainly looks the part, but is of such little consequence to the film that it really doesn't matter what kind of performance she turns in. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Hilary Swank, who's given a vital role and fumbles it horribly. It's a bad performance, but nowhere near as bad as Fiona Shaw, who, as Swank's mother, does her damnedest to ruin the picture entirely. The one bright spot is Mia Kirshner, whose Elizabeth Short, the Dahlia herself, manages to steal the film entirely through flashback and audition reels. It's honest and endearing and brutally sad all at once. Terrific stuff. She seems like she's acting in a different movie -- you know, one that actually focuses on the Dahlia murder.

I had high hopes for this movie. It was a chance for De Palma to redeem himself, working in the genre through which he made his name. I'm a sucker for noir, and aesthetically speaking, the casting was perfect: people with the old Hollywood look playing in an old Hollywood movie (Eckhart and Johansson especially just look...classic). L.A. Confidential is my favourite film of all time, and both are based on James Ellroy novels. It took me a long while to decide whether I liked the movie or not, which never bodes well. In the end, there are a number of positives to take out of the viewing experience -- just not enough. The camera work is sharp, but a number of the sets look like cheap back lots.

Ultimately, a disappointment. What a shame.

For a film with subject matter so "taboo" it's a wonder it comes off so dull. Howard, by not wanting to run the risk of offending anyone, never really runs the risk of entertaining them either. Has there ever been a less interesting leading man than Robert Langdon? I'm hard pressed to think of one. Hanks is truly awful in this movie: some of his delivery is so questionable he should consider giving one of his Oscars back. He has the look, but every time he opens his mouth...well, it's dumbfounding, really.

Reno is given a rather one-note character (hell, his name -- Fache -- is even French for "angry"), but manages to humanize him a bit towards the tail-end of the film. Too bad its far too late, and Goldsman's script is filled with this kind of laziness -- his use of flashback is almost offensive. Tautou is winningly cute, Bettany surprisingly chilling, and Molina might as well not be in the movie.

Which brings us to McKellen, who is magnificent, and the only reason the film is worth watching. Sure he does a wee bit of scenery-chewing, but his presence manages to single-handedly pump life into this stagnant adventure. The movie dazzles every time he's on-screen. He somehow makes it fun. Too bad it carries on for another 25mins after his exit...

It's slick and intriguing enough to be a decent watch, but the movie serves no purpose. The bad guys don't want revenge, they don't want to make a statement. Greed is their motive. They just want the money. ... Ditto the film-makers.

Decently entertaining, but it's so bloody listless about, well, even existing. Petersen (who has worked with ships and water how many times now??) seems bored out of his brain by the material. Unlike the Irwin Allen original, this one doesn't delight in the death and danger it creates -- hell, the death scenes barely even register. Rossum and Lucas do great things with what little they're given, but Russell is ultimately wasted and Dreyfuss is so unnoticeable he may as well not even be in the movie.

It's cool, and the opening shot (the longest and most expensive piece of effects work ever put to film) is stunning. Maybe with a director who cared, or even wanted to have fun with it, this could have been something. Instead it takes itself way too seriously without ever giving you a reason to care.

A real disappointment. If you want some fine comedy, just watch the trailer, as the film itself can't tell if it wants to be fun or serious. There are a few honestly chilling moments, and a couple decent laughs, but it falls apart when it tries to push a stupid ham-fisted moral. The potential is there for a camp classic, but...ugh. It just doesn't go anywhere with its ideas.

Carrie Bradshaw meets Terry Bradshaw, and the wrong one gets naked. The title, awful as it sounds, is wholly appropriate, as what starts out with a mildly original and entertaining concept, ends up using it to peddle the same old crap. Why is that every rom-com feels obligated to toss any and all common sense out the window to create the most saccharine and stupid conclusion possible? I guess there really wasn't much reality to begin with, with characters like Tripp, Kit, Ace and Demo. ... Right, because *those* are real names.

It's not all bad though, I actually did laugh, a lot. Zooey Deschanel, as Sarah Jessica Parker's down-on-love alcoholic roommate, is a fucking riot. If the missus makes you watch this, and after 'Sex and the City' there's a good chance she might, Zooey makes it worthwhile. There's a scene between her and Rob Corrdry, of Daily Show fame, that's absolutely classic. Other than that, blah.

No twist! No twist! No twist! Thank God. Shyamalan tests his mettle as a real storyteller, sans gimmick finish, and while the movie ultimately fails, it's a misstep in the right direction. The cast he's assembled here is fantastic, even the minor characters are played by the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Freddy Rodriguez. They're all capable actors, with Giamatti leading the pack, but the material lets them down. It languishes in its own absurdity, taking its stupid made-up words so seriously. The opening narration is laughably bad, and the movie never really picks up from there. This could have been something if it had fun with itself. But everything is just. so. serious. Ugh.

It's self-aware storytelling, which is interesting to a point, but the twists and turns aren't remotely surprising. The problem with telling a story that knows it's a story is that we know it's a story. To work, it really has to pack some punches, and this doesn't. As the characters struggle to find their place in the narrative (literally), there are few miscastings. But if they aren't "The Guardian", who is? Who else? That guy at the beginning of the movie -- you know, that recognizable actor who had a line or two early on, and has shown up randomly in background shots since. Shyamalan has to be smarter than his audience, or at least a better storyteller for this to work, and the problem is: he's not. At least he's stopped trying to be Hitchcock... And on that note:

Hitch used to plant his director cameos in the early minutes, showing up as a silent foreground extra for a few seconds. It was fun for the audience, a nice little game before getting down to the nitty-gritty. Shyamalan keeps getting bigger and bigger within his own films, here casting himself as literally the most important human character in the flick. He gets a lot of screen time, and many a moment to emote his inner turmoil, but I don't care about his story, because every time I see him on screen I'm overcome by a need to punch him in the face for being so self-indulgent.

A disappointing effort that could have been much better. At least it's better than The Village.

Total nonsense, and up there with Breakin' 2 among the most unnecessary sequels ever made. Exists solely as an excuse to dress up Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight leather. The director, Len Wiseman, is her husband, and takes the opportunity to shoot his wife in his wildest S&M fantasy fight sequences. Though Lord help him if these are his wildest fantasies, as the movie is as unimaginatively stupid as it gets in terms of story and action. Save yourself the time and effort: just ogle Kate online.

I hate the Best Animated Feature Oscar. Hate it. It prevents a film like WALL-E from getting a bigger nomination that it justly deserved, and meanwhile shit like Happy Feet can lay claim to being an Academy Award winner. So many arbitrary celebrity voices, dance numbers, you name it. This film annoyed me to no end. It aims for redemption with a 'halp save da erff' moral, but some of the choices made here are just unforgivable. The finale is strange, to say the least. Couldn't wait for it to end.

The movie, if you can call it that, with it's meager 65min runtime, opens with Captain America dropping out of the sky to help the Allied troops in 1945. Hitler is dead, but the Nazis are launching one last strike -- a nuclear superweapon aimed straight for American soil. "Wait a second," you're thinking. "Where did the Nazis get nuclear capability?" Where else? From aliens.

Yes, that's right. Captain America is kicking Nazi alien ass and we're only 5mins in. He stops the attack, but his body is flung into the ocean (somehow, even though the castle the missile launched out of was very much in-land) and he's frozen in the brimy deep for 60 years. Thawed out in 2005, his presence is needed to save the Earth once more. Nick Fury , leader of S.H.I.E.L.D., needs Cap to lead a team of superheroes to stop the aliens once and for all. What exactly the aliens had been doing for 60 years, the movie makes no mention of. They're just back, and out to get capitalists once and for all. The team, titled Project Avenger, is compiled of Cap, Fury, Black Widow (Fury's second-in-command), Bruce Banner/Hulk, Iron Man, Thor, Antman and Wasp. They meet and the social hierarchy is set. What follows is half an hour of nonsense action sequences.

Now you're probably wondering why I would watch this. As Marvel's first animated film, I was curious to see what they would pull off. I've also read a few issues of The Ultimates (the basis of the film), and thought it to be a pretty sweet book. Keep in mind I have a very low quality-standard when it comes to superhero movies -- I enjoyed both Daredevil and Hulk, two films that everyone else seems to hate. That said, let me get down to business: Flat out, this "movie" sucks. It's too violent and over-sexed for kids, and too mind-numbingly stupid for adults. I couldn't really tell you why anything happens, it just does, and at times it's so ridiculous, I laughed out loud.

The one saving grace is, the animation is top notch. There are times when some computer-generated sequences get in the way of the hand-drawn stuff, but for the most part, this is a good looking flick. It just lacks any semblance of a workable script. I don't even recommend it to die-hard comic fans; it just sucks, plain and simple.

Have you seen the trailer for this film? Congratulations, you've seen the whole movie in two minutes and saved yourself another 137! The trailer leaves one thing up in the air: does the young upstart hot-head, sent in to rescue his steely, grizzled veteran mentor, succeed or fail in his final mission? I'll leave you to sort that out on your own. Kutcher and Costner do their damnedest, but this cliche-fest was doomed to sink from the moment it left port. It doesn't hold water. Somebody, stop me.

I didn't much like Top Gun, and have even less tolerance for its knock-offs.

I really wanted to have fun with this movie, that bills itself as James Bond for kids. The cast is actually pretty talented, even if some are just popping in for a cameo. Mickey Rourke of all people is the diabolical villain. It should all add up to a good time, but...it just doesn't. The movie feels lifeless despite its cast (well, partly because of Silverstone). I did enjoy Ewan McGregor's brief turn -- he shows up early and dies immediately. Lucky man.

The leftist story of a Republican family who mock their Democrat in-law, only to have his blue-state ass save the day by killing a pack of mutant hick retards.

But seriously, the first 35mins or so of this movie were absolutely terrible: boring, decidedly not scary, and filled with cheap shock jump-out scares and hilarious lines like "We probably won't be able to take too many more family trips after this one!" and "Thank God no one's watching us!" Picks up a bit in the middle with some excessive gore and action, but was still ridiculous. Stanford was quite good, but the absurdity of his villains often made me laugh out loud. The very ending was awful.

That this is considered one of the better horror movies (more specifically, horror remakes) of late, is a sad and pathetic sign for the state of the genre.

Lacks the original's wit and sense of humour, and the first sequel's sense of bloody mayhem and gore. Unlike the many unlikely scenarios projected on-screen, it's totally harmless -- it just sits there. The opening credits sequence has a cool sense of style, got my hopes up for what could have easily been a fun and stylish romp through familiar territory. Instead, I was treated to "Lets go visit this guy, OH SHIT HE DIED RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME! ... Lets go try and warn this guy, OH SNAP I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M IN THE ROOM EVERY TIME THEY EAT IT!"

The deaths, by and large, are quick-cut blood-bursts that aren't nearly as graphic as one would hope, and nowhere near as cool and imaginative as the highway sequence of #2. Even the initial accident -- the rollercoaster of death -- isn't half as cool as the original's plane explosion. In that flick Sawa warns the youngins, they all get off and call him crazy, and then a PLANE FREAKING EXPLODES in the background. Here Winstead freaks, the kiddies get off the ride...and we barely even see the crash, it's mostly off-screen. And that's the whole movie in a nut-shell: one massive cock-tease after another.

As a Vancouverite, and someone who rides the featured death-coaster at least once annually, I'm particularly disappointed. See, I'm scared of the Corkscrew already -- there's a point in the ride as you near the end where the tracks seem to overlap too tight. Every time I breeze by, I can't help but think if I was a bit taller my head would lopped clean off. I don't think you could find a more willing audience member than I: someone who already unnaturally fears the ride which, for the sake of the film, we are supposed to unnaturally fear. And I didn't. Not once. I'll keep riding it every year, and keep cringing at the one spot I always did. This movie did nothing for me.

Wow. Terrible. Just terrible.

I held out hope for this movie to be good: it's directed by Ivan Reitman, and boasts a strong cast that includes Rainn Wilson (TV's The Office [NBC]) and Eddie Izzard, in support of Uma and the other Wilson. What a mistake that was. This movie was a major letdown -- just shamelessly terrible, with sex joke after sex joke after sex joke, each as limp and flaccid as the last!

An utter embarrassment. I felt bad for the people on screen.

"So like I got this idea for a movie, right? It takes place in the Annapolis Naval Academy, which is a pretty prestigious training facility, and also, no one's ever filmed a movie there! Perfect place for a coming-of-age story about military training, right? Right? That's just what THEY would expect, we gotta switch it up on 'em. We'll be all up in the Navy place, except it's about BOXING. Nobody's ever gonna guess that! Amirite? Sounds good, right man? Right??" No. Sounds fucking awful. It is.

You just know a sequel will be good when not one single person associated with the original came back. Did I mention the 'direct-to-video' part? The only reason I could keep watching this is that it was filmed in Vancouver (where I live), and I wanted to keep playing "Spot That Location!" with my dad. That's what you get when your director was the D.P. on I Know Who Killed Me.

What a beautiful disaster of a movie, and "disaster" is putting it lightly. The visuals here are mixed bag, but it's mostly gorgeous -- the creature design is (mostly) cool, and there are some really awesome death sequences. There are times, however, when the movie looks too "digitized", as if the special effects team isn't looking to bring the game's environments to life, but rather, merely emulate them. That's mildly annoying, but not nearly as bad as the movie's major flaw: the script is absolutely horrendous.

The plot is more than a little murky, but that could be forgiveable, if the film didn't contain what is easily some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. How bad is it? Just read for yourself:

Christabella: "Are you a person of faith?"
Rose: "I love my daughter."
Christabella: "That's not what I asked."
Rose: "Who are you to judge??"
Christabella: "We judge because the souls of history hang in the balance."

I was actually excited to see this movie. I like Radha Mitchell quite a bit, Sean Bean's in it, and Christophe Gans directed Brotherhood of the Wolf. The trailers made it look sufficiently scary and I've heard good things about the games. This is two hours of my life I will never get back. The closing credit sequence was better than the movie itself, and this is definitely one of the worst endings I've seen in a long time.

Wasn't nearly as horrible as I thought it would be, but then again, I was expecting some "worst ever" levels of suckage. Schneider, Spade and Napoleon are like an unholy trinity of not-funniness, and the movie pairs each of them with some excessively hot women -- especially Schneider, whose bomb-shell wife (Molly Sims) doesn't want to do anything but have sex with him. Rob Schneider must have written the script too, I guess.

Pretty sad when, in a cast filled with SNL alumni, Reggie Jackson is the funniest guy in the movie.

I would like to buy a hamburger. Give me my money back and I'll get right on it.

This movie is obsessed with shit. Not surprisingly, it is shit. Sonnenfeld has lost his touch completely, and the decent cast assembled for this are wasted on the material (or lack thereof).

LOL Frankie Muniz. Adam Goldberg deserves better than this. Decent concept, terrible execution. There is no point to this movie at all, it's just terrible.

This movie is really just insultingly bad, but at least its awfulness makes for high comedy. "We traced the call. IT'S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE, OH EM GEE". I'd like to dedicate the half-star this movie is receiving to Belle's "ehhn-HUH, ehhn-HUH" pained breathing, which is the funniest part of the movie. I dare you to watch the trailer without laughing.

Terrible. Absolutely awful. I hoped it would make for good stupid fun in a 'so awful it's incredible' kind of way, and there are a few scenes where it is. Mostly though, it's just painful. I found the trailer to be completely hilarious, but watching the movie was a chore. Dodge this unless you're completely intoxicated -- and even then, look out.

It's such a shame, too. The trailer played before Snakes on a Plane and I laughed harder at this than I did at anything in SoaP.

What in the hell?! Why is this so wildly popular? Most afterschool specials would find its content humbling, and it sounds like it was scored by Aaron Carter.

Dear Haylie Duff,

Being sisters with someone who is famous is not the same thing as being famous yourself. As you may or may not know, Hilary (you know, the sibling you leech off) was in Lizzie Maguire, which proved pretty popular with the youngins. You were in...what, one of her music videos? Scored a bit role in Napoleon Dynamite because it was running on MTV funding? Crawl into a hole and die, you horse-faced succubus.

Dear Anjelica Huston,

What have you done.