2008: Best-to-Worst

Iron Man. Who'd have thought?

Quite simply one of the best superhero flicks ever made, and a strong contender for the top spot. I honestly don't know if I can pinpoint a single flaw in the film, except that I wish it was even longer. Not only does it succeed as a comic book adaptation, it succeeds as just a great movie. Probably the most enjoyable flick I've seen in a good two years or more.
So how did this movie get it right when so many others get it all wrong? It certainly isn't just the character. Iron Man is a second-tier Marvel character that never really caught my eye much or gained the general public's love. I believe it was two factors: casting and respect for the material.

First and foremost, I can't imagine anyone but Robert Downey Jr. playing this role. He owns it so completely and is such a perfect fit that I have to wonder how much of the script was completely re-written for him or was improvised. His brand of humor and wit, along with his great range as an actor allow him to convey the whole arc of Tony Stark's story, and to make it entertaining every step of the way. I am especially impressed at the studio's decision to *gasp* actually cast an appropriate actor over 40 years old, rather than change him to a 20-something pretty-boy just to bring in the teen box office.

While so many other comic book flicks treat their material (and audiences) condescendingly, or just as a silly story that can be used to show off cool effects or action scenes, Iron Man instead respects that it can be just as good or respectable as any other film. Nothing is over-the-top or forced. The story is much more grounded in reality than most superhero genre films - There are no "superpowers", just technological genius and talent. It's taken to extreme degrees, for sure, but never feels far-fetched or silly. The film also shows you can include comedy without it being blatant comic relief, full of forced silliness and one-liners. No the laughter here is genuine, and lots of it. I laughed more in this film than I have in any actual comedy film in a long time.

Recent superhero flicks like Batman Begins and Superman Returns were well made, exciting, and dramatic, but lacked the fun factor. The overall tone of those films is so dour that repeated viewings are a bit of a chore. Then others like the Fantastic Four came out and went in the too far in the other direction, being cheesy and dumb. Iron Man got back to the tone of the first two Superman films and found the perfect balance of drama and comedy.

I could go on about every aspect of the film - the supporting players, score, effects... but I'll just say it all clicked. The rest of the summer's flicks are going to have a lot to live up to. I suspect this is the movie people will go back and see again and again, as other summer fare fades away. Just plain fun.

Animation, especially computer-animation, has found its success largely through making things talk that normally don't - animals, toys, cars, etc. So it's ironic to find that one of Wall-E's greatest strengths is that is practically a silent movie.

There are sound effects and (very) limited dialogue, of course, but this very well could have been a silent movie, and you wouldn't have missed a thing. Wall-E is like a Charlie Chaplin movie brought into the 21st... well, actually, 28th century. It has a definite Chaplin "Little Tramp" feel to it.

What sound it does have is extraordinary. The score is probably the best of the year, though I swear I heard music cues from all kinds of other films, from Indiana Jones to Star Wars to Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves to composer Thomas Newman's own American Beauty and Meet Joe Black. Ben Burtt, Lucasfilm soundman extraordinaire, crafts the beautiful sounds that carry the film, so it's fitting that Burtt also gets to provide the voice of Wall-E himself. It's often easy to overlook the contribution and the pure beauty of the sound, as well as the outstanding animation. We've come to just expect greatness from Pixar, plus it's so perfect, you just don't even notice the technical stuff.

At its heart, though, in spite of its technical achievements, this is a love story - THE love story of the year. Wall-E is simply a thing of beauty.

Let's get this out of the way right off the top: Heath Ledger is nothing short of amazing in this film. Heath Ledger's Joker makes Jack Nicholson's Joker look like Cesar Romero's Joker. Less cartoony and far more menacing, this Joker actually feels dangerous. Every moment he's onscreen your eyes are simply glued there, just soaking in this iconic performance. His look, his mannerisms, his voice... they all come together to make the perfect Joker, and probably the best villain ever seen onscreen in a superhero movie... or any movie, for that matter. It's really quite a shame Ledger passed away, as I would love to have seen him portray that character again and again.

Does the rest of the movie match this level of excellence? Well, not entirely...
It's got plenty of action, just enough humor, and a good script for the most part, but there are a couple minor things that bothered me slightly:

If they have to recast Rachel Dawes, fine, but Maggie Gyllenhal is a big step down; Bale's gruff "Batman" voice still sounds a little over-the-top and almost humorous at times; and the movie takes a few unnecessary turns, especially towards the end. Much off this is due to the involvement of "Two-Face." This film didn't need a second villain. His time onscreen does nothing but make the audience wish they'd hurry up and get back to the real villain. I've never cared for the character, and I suppose it's good they didn't wait to try to use him as the sole foe in a future film, but he simply didn't do anything for me.
Aside from those aspects, however, it's difficult to find much to criticize in this movie.

I struggled greatly with the rating for this one, as without The Joker, the rest would only have made for another above-average film like Batman Begins. But Ledger's Joker is undeniably the star of this show, and based on that performance alone, I spot it the higher rating. Forget The Dark Knight - they should just call this The Joker. Ledger simply OWNS this film.

(on a related note, check out THIS LiveJournal entry)

I had a bad feeling about this...

The reviews going in were overwhelmingly negative. The movie started, and it just felt odd to see the WB logo instead of 20th Century Fox. Then the strange altered Star Wars main title theme. Then in place of the traditional opening crawl of text, we get a visual synopsis of what's going on, complete with a voiceover straight out of WWII newsreels. But then the strangest thing happened: I absolutely LOVED this movie!

This is the movie the first two prequels should have been. It's exciting, fast-paced, and feels perfectly in line with the spirit and fun of the original trilogy. I have to wonder if George Lucas was far more hands-off on this and let others have the majority of the control over writing, directing, etc., because it's a massive improvement over Lucas' recent efforts.

The animation itself is excellent. It's obviously going for a more stylistic look rather than trying for photorealism or Pixar-style perfection, and while I was wary at first (the faces and eyes for some reason remind me of Team America), I ended up really liking the style.

The musical score is done by Kevin Kiner, with only minimal use of the original themes by John Williams, and it is extraordinary. It sounds like a combination of Williams and Hans Zimmer, and to me that's like having a symphony jointly composed by Mozart and Beethoven. I actually stopped on the way home (at 11pm) to pick up the soundtrack. I can't even remember the last CD I bought, much less felt the need to get ASAP.

I am absolutely baffled by the negative reviews this film is getting. I honestly don't know what flaws people are finding with it. Are they just jaded fans who feel betrayed by the prequel trilogy? I'm hearing people say this is the last straw - the nail in the coffin that's making them finally close the door on Star Wars for good. They say it doesn't even "feel" like Star Wars. Did we see the same movie? I could not feel more differently. After the prequels, though having their moments, tarnished the saga and even somewhat diminished my devotion for the originals, Clone Wars has completely restored my faith and excitement in the series. If they can keep this up, we're in for a long run of great stories.

I liked the Clone Wars (non-CG) cartoons that aired on Cartoon Network, but they absolutely pale in comparison to this new project. I cannot wait for the series to begin. This level of story, animation, action and fun on a weekly basis? I've never been so excited for a TV series.

Another case of failed marketing. The trailer for this film did nothing to interest me, but I finally saw it based on a glowing recommendation. I'm glad I did.

The film is at times alternately laugh-out-loud funny and touchingly dramatic. Its success hinges greatly on the performance and chemistry of its two leads, Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, and both do phenomenal jobs (especially Farrell) helped by a witty script by Martin McDonagh. It had a very "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" feel to it.

Colin Farrell's role is an excellent departure from his usual characters, this one odd, hilarious, and almost child-like. I would love to see him (and Brendan Gleeson) score Oscar nominations for their performances in this film... but they won't.

One of the best animated films I've seen in a long while. Dreamworks is finally showing it can overcome the mediocrity of movies like Shrek, Bee Movie, and Madagascar, and put out a film that is not only fun, but shows excellence in animation as well. The CG animation is beautiful, and could easily stand up next to Pixar's work, and even the 2-D animated opening was beautifully done. I would've even loved to see them do the whole film in that style.

Plenty of laughs to be had for audiences of any age. A truly enjoyable movie.

Liam Neeson: Bad-Ass??

Hell yeah he is. Believe it or not, Neeson stars in the best (non-superhero) action movie of the year. This movie was the out-of-nowhere surprise of the year I've been hoping for.

As an ex-government agent out to find and rescue his kidnapped daughter, Neeson's character is like Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer combined, except that this guy could take either of those two down in a heartbeat. He's skilled, intense, and won't hesitate to take down anyone who stands between him and his daughter.

This film opens in the U.S. in September, and it's a shame that it is getting virtually no promotion. Neeson isn't the biggest box office draw, much less as an action star, but I urge everyone out there to give this a chance. It's a thrilling action/drama that truly impressed me, and it's full of moments that make your jaw drop, make you cheer, and make you yell, "Daaaaaaamn!"

Directed by, co-written by, and co-starring several members of The State. Starring Paul Rudd, possibly the funniest actor working today. Co-starring Seann William Scott, in a role that's right up there with his best work in The Rundown and the first American Pie. This had hilarious written all over it... and it didn't disappoint. A whole lot of fun, and one of the best comedies of the year.

I give them extra points for not watering it down for a PG-13, which they very well could have done to go for bigger box office, but it would have removed a considerable amount of the best humor.

From the very beginning, its Fight Club envy shows - the self-loathing of the humdrum, meaningless, comfortable life; the narration that is remarkably similar both in content and tone; the sudden appearance of a stranger who can break you free of this mediocrity and let you truly live through pain and violence... From there the story kicks into gear, and is quite enjoyable. It's just that first 10 minutes (and a snippet at the end) that are trying too hard to make the movie someting it is not and be a social commentary.



The director has a flare for staging some crazy action, and creates some amazing visuals. Unfortunately, the movie, entertaining as it may be, is much emptier than than the film I suspect he thought it was. It's a case of style over substance, though not to the extent of, say, 300 - another movie that was great fun and had extraordinary visuals, but was light on substance.



What it is, is exactly what the trailers sold it as: a great over-the-top suspend-your-disbelief actioner in the spirit of things like Transporter and Crank. Leave your brain at the door and just enjoy it.

In my mind, this movie had a lot of negatives to overcome: Christine Baranski, Meryl Streep singing, a cast that didn't exactly scream "hit", ...the music of ABBA, for pete's sake! But as difficult as it is to say, I'll say it....

I am a heterosexual male, and I enjoyed Mamma Mia!



There's plenty to like - Amanda Seyfried's infectious joy (and beauty), the stunning Greek isle scenery, and yes, the music. It won me over practically from the start. The positives far outweighed the negatives - in fact, the negatives turned out not to be.



Abba's music never did much for me as pop songs, but in the context of a musical, they work quite well. There are a couple numbers I think could have been left out, specifically Baranski's "Does Your Mother Know" and Streep and Brosnan's "Winner Takes It All", but even those weren't bad.

The singing is good pretty much across the board. Even the weakest singer, Pierce Brosnan, did a surprisingly good job. His voice has a certain Peter Gabriel quality to it (with a dash of Randy Newman).



For those friends of mine that refuse to see anything not considered a "manly" movie (and you know who you are), skip it. But for everyone else, take a chance on Mamma Mia. You may find yourself tapping your toes and smiling along.

On the surface, I would never have thought I would have any interest in seeing the film. Frank Langella? In a movie set in a period history I neither know much about nor care to learn? Centered around an interview? Based on a play? But the trailers piqued my interest, and the film didn't disappoint. It's a tremendous showcase of great acting from top to bottom. Sheen and Langella are brilliant in the titular roles, and a talented roster of supporting actors (including Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, and Kevin Bacon, to name just a few) turn in strong performances as well.

Like most play adaptations, you can tell it was a play, yet director Ron Howard has crafted this riveting chess match of words in such a way that it never loses moviegoers' interest.

After 19 years of waiting, Indiana Jones has returned. I went into this with mixed feelings. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my #1 favorite film of all time. I enjoy the Indiana Jones trilogy even more than the original Star Wars films. While I was glad to have another Indy movie, I was worried it just wouldn't work anymore. Is Harrison too old? Will Shia Labeouf's character be pointless and annoying? Can Spielberg remember how to make a "fun" movie? Can George Lucas redeem himself after the epic disappointment of the Star Wars prequels? I ended up on opening night finding myself hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.

Warning: Spoilers aplenty

Indy is definitely older. He's still full of wit and action, but he's definitely lost a bit of the spring his step and the spark in his eye. Harrison still feels like Indy, but the film doesn't always feel like an Indiana Jones film. But why? There are several factors: The cinematography feels too clean and modern, and doesn't have the same look as the original three films. Plus, contrary to Spielberg's claims that they were using practical effects rather CGI as much as possible, there is still an awful lot of obvious bluescreen work and CG elements - a sharp contrast to the style of the other films. It also doesn't help that Indy almost never uses his whip (just once to grab a gun, once to swing, and once as a rope to try to pull Mac up), draws his gun only once before it's taken away for the rest of the film, and more than half of the characters in this film never even call him Indy or Indiana - "Henry,""Jonesy," "Gramps," "Professor," "Old Man," etc - but rarely "Indy."

But the primary reason it doesn't feel completely like an Indiana Jones film is the complete shift in genre. Lucas has repeatedly emphasized that while the first three films took place in the 1930's and 40's and therefore were modeled on the serials of that time, this one is set in the 1950's, and so it is modeled after the films of that time - UFO's, atomic age, sci-fi B-movies, etc. The problem is, Indiana Jones is NOT a character from those films - he is a Saturday Morning Serial character. That's like taking Flash Gordon and putting him in a western. That is why it didn't "feel" like an Indiana Jones movie... it wasn't. Sure, they had to acknowledge the passing of time, but the change of focus and genre was unnecessary and quite jarring.

Okay, so it feels different. But is it any good? If I were to have answered that question after my first viewing, I would have said no. There were fun moments - glimpses of the movie we really wanted to see - but they were few and far between. It wasn't a horrible film, just a hugely disappointing one - and not just as a result of high expectations. Too many parts just didn't work: Indy surviving the atomic test by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator (even if he survived the blast, that crashing and bouncing would have crushed every bone in his body), Mutt's Tarzan-style jaunt through the jungle, Marion's drive off the cliff onto the tree that perfectly lowers them into the river... Then there's the aliens. OH, the aliens.

While the very idea of an alien-based plot in an Indy movie is bizarre, I could go along with it... to a point. The crystal skulls, the temple, the idea that aliens had come to Earth long ago... even the discovery of the skeletons in the temple. But once we saw the skeletons come to life, the aliens in (obviously CG) restored form and the actual flying saucer, it ceased being an Indiana Jones sequel and became a Close Encounters sequel. I was extremely frustrated by the bait-and-switch of a sci-fi flick masquerading as an Indiana Jones movie.

I was worried this alien theme tarnished my view of the rest of the film. I had spent much of the movie thinking, "oh sh*t - is this going where I think it's going?" and as a result was unable to just sit back and enjoy the ride. And the ending just trashed any goodwill the film had built up with its earlier fun. So I went back for a second viewing.
This time, I knew what to expect. The minute it began, I just had to accept the fact that, yes, this is gonna end with aliens and a flying saucer. I just prepared myself to ignore the sillier and more out-of-place aspects I knew were coming, and enjoy the film. Once I was able to do that, I found myself appreciating the film much more. The little things, like the fridge and Mutt's vine-swinging, didn't bother me anymore. I had re-watched the other films and realized there are plenty of silly, over-the-top things in all of them, if maybe not to the same degree.

So the final verdict: It's fun, but flawed. I'd easily rank it the lowest of the four films, but I'd say there was more to it that I liked than things that I didn't. It's just a movie with an identity crisis. Overall it's a satisfying popcorn flick - just not quite the classic its predecessors are.
I blame George Lucas. Most everything that doesn't work it seems can be traced directly to him.

p.s. - The Shia LaBeouf Question: I actually thought he was one of the better parts of the film, to the point where I actually found myself enjoying him more than Ford at some points.

...and oh yeah, Harrison Ford loses even more respect from me for pronouncing it "nu-CU-lar." Ugh.

DVD UPDATE: Watching this at home on a TV, it felt more fitting - maybe just because that's the only way we've watched the previous three for 20 years now. I feel like everything from the opening through the college chase works and feels like the Indy we love, as well as the jungle chase until just before the ants show up. The rest, not so much...

Hancock is getting a lot of undeserved criticism. Is it a perfect film? No. But is it a mess, or even the massive disappoinment it's been made out to be? Not at all.

Hancock is a movie that tries to tell too much story, and ends up telling too little. I've heard it said that this film feels like all setup (similar to my comments about Jumper). But I believe differently in this case. I think if it was hoped this character would continue in subsequent films, they should have kept this first film just the introduction of the character, with his down-and-out reluctant-hero attitude, and his transformation to a more positive image and attitude (with a new subplot/villain to make a complete film). The second film could have delved more into his origins and history and his encounters with and relationships to others with his power. Then from there, they could go anywhere they wanted. As it is, though, I hope this remains a stand-alone film with no sequels. It's a great concept (both his early film personality and his origins), I loved the cast, and the film was entertaining; but it has left itself nowhere to go from here without just being the typical superhero movie.

The film also feels very incomplete, like there was more to it - and from what I hear that's exactly the case. I'm very curious to see the inevitible (hopefully) director's cut of the film. Reportedly Peter Berg had to cut and alter quite a bit (it now runs barely 90 minutes) to get the desired PG-13 rating and the film the studio wanted - a safe family-friendly Will Smith summer flick. I think there's a good chance that in trying to increase the success of the film by mandating a PG13 film, they actually may have hurt its chances by neutering it.

For me, this was one of those odd movies where I enjoyed most of the scenes, and found most of the jokes to be quite funny, but found the overall story of the film to be uninteresting and unbelievable. But you know what you're getting into with a Kevin Smith film, and this is no exception. The jokes are dirty and the language foul, but if such things don't bother you, it's a fun enough way to kill an hour and a half.

Take Enemy of the State, remove all logic and believability, and what you get is Eagle Eye.

Wait... Enemy had logic and believability? Compared to this, yeah it did...



Eagle Eye is a movie that should rate higher. So much about it works. The cast and acting is great across the board, especially Shia LaBeouf; the direction is fine; the action sequences are intense and exciting. All the elements are there... except for one key element: the story.



The story is SO far out there, with so many holes and completely unbelievable aspects, that it's difficult to suspend disbelief enough to fully enjoy the film. You can still give it the benefit of the doubt for the first half, but then it takes a turn that just makes you go "are you kidding me?"

...And the ending is a total cop-out that wreaks of test screening reshoots. I won't spoil anything, but let's just say in a real situation like that, it would definitely not have ended with the same result. (If after seeing it you still don't know what I'm referring to, message me and I'll elaborate.)



A decent popcorn flick, but I had high expectations and the story just caused this to fall well short of meeting them.

To sum it up quickly: Too much setup. This entire film should have been the first half-hour of a bigger story. They try to make this just a first chapter, like an "origin" story in a superhero film, but if you're gonna spend the whole film setting up a story, and leave an ending wide open for sequels, you better be damn sure the public will actually care enough to see more. I don't think that will be the case here. Perhaps if it had been filmed and marketed as a teen flick as the book was, the series could have a longer life; but as an adult franchise I'd be surprised if there are further installments.



It wasn't a bad flick. It was a fun distraction for an hour or two, with some good action and visuals, but it was certainly nothing special. I think much of that is due to the cast. Diane Lane is always good, but she was barely in it, and Samuel L. Jackson was just distracting - partly because of the pointless white hair, and partly because pairing him with Hayden Christensen constantly reminded you of Star Wars and took you out of the movie. The main stars, Christensen himself and Rachel Bilson, were just so...blah. I actually would have preferred if Jamie Bell had been the star instead of just a supporting role.

The new Hulk is not quite as drastically different from the previous one as they'd have you believe in terms of being action-packed. The Hulk still shows up rather sparingly for the first 3/4 of the movie, then finally takes center stage for the extended climactic finale. Not that I think it should be any different - I just don't think this one piles on the action much more than the last, as has been said. That being said, this film is a huge improvement over the mess that was the last Hulk film. From the acting to the writing to the effects, this blows away Ang Lee's version.
The CG is not bad, and I'm sure it's probably the best possible at this time, but still looks very artificial, especially faces and when interacting with real characters. But such is the nature of movies - suspension of disbelief.

The movie is pretty enjoyable, though, and chalks up another success for Marvel. If only the film rights to other characters like X-Men and Spider-Man would revert back to them so they can do them properly.

Regarding the cameos: I have no problem with other Marvel characters showing up in cameos in these films - why shouldn't they all exist in the same universe? But I'm getting a little tired of the rest of these wink-wink cameos - this time we get Stan Lee AGAIN (seriously, in one movie it was funny, after that it's just annoying) and TV Hulk Lou Ferrigno. Stunt casting like that really takes you out of the story, and you have to listen to everyone in the theater turn to their friend or kid and say "hey! that's _______!"

Most documentaries are far from impartial. They have an agenda, and will skew and edit their content in a way that best supports their ideas. This is not a new phenomenon - Nazis had "documentaries" about how Jews were evil, and Tobacco companies had "documentaries" about how smoking is good for you.

Religulous is no different. It's a soapbox for Bill Maher to say what he wants to say, and presents interviews and evidence in a way that mocks anyone who disagrees and makes them look fanatical and silly.

Maher, of course, for the most part only presents the extremes of religion (as these best support his case), from overzealous followers to straight-up whackos. But I would wager that 90% of people in these religions would agree that those extremes do not represent their beliefs. It's also worth noting that he only really covers "Western" religions.

Oddly, however, I agree with many of Maher's opinions. He's a smug condescending bastard, but he has many of the same doubts and problems I have, and asks many of the same questions I ask. So while I enjoy much of it, and like the points he's making, I also think his satirical approach detracts from his argument. It's the same issue I have with Michael Moore - I agree with him on most issues, and his films present some thought-provoking insights, but you have to take it all with a grain of salt, considering the far-from-impartial source.

Most Clint Eastwood-directed movies have a history of being overlong, boring, and slow (not to mention highly overrated). I believe I once used the phrase "snail-paced suckfests". I fully expected Changeling to continue that trend, but gave it a shot anyway.

The film was actualy quite compelling, with outstanding performaces throughout led by Angelina Jolie. And more importantly, it never seemed to drag or cause sleepiness in true Eastwood fashion. I was all ready to praise it for that, but then the movie went on for about 45 minutes past the point where it should have ended. Still a good flick, despite Eastwood's hand.

Sam Mendes returns to American Beauty territory with another tale of a disintegrating marriage. Absent this time is the occasional comedy offered up to lighten the mood. What's left is a well-made, albeit dreary and depressing, look at what happens when the honeymoon is over.

DiCaprio is good, while Russell Crowe just does his best J.T. Walsh impression and Mark Strong is the middle eastern Andy Garcia in this passable action/drama from Ridley Scott. I don't know that the casting of Crowe really added to the film at all, as his role was prety one-note and didn't necessitate a big star.

The film is worth seeing, but nothing particularly memorable

For anyone looking for Hollywood to make a good Mixed Martial Arts film (Never Back Down was nothing but a bad Karate Kid adaptation), let me just say this is not the film you are looking for. If you're looking for hardcore fights and awesome action, you'll be hugely disappointed. This is a David Mamet film through and through, that just happens to be partially set in the world of MMA. It's a drama, it's slow, it's talky, it's (intentionally) confusing, and it's unconventional. Does that make it a bad film? No.

The story, like most Mamet works, is almost noirish. It's got conspiracies, twists, and dark moments, yet its focus remains truly on the main character. The ending, which some find confusing, makes complete sense to me and truly fits the story and gives the title its meaning.

Chiwetol Ejiofor's performance alone makes it worth watching. He is one of the most underrated actors working today, and his work here confirms that yet again.

I would recommend this film to anyone, but just know what it is. If you go in expecting a movie about fighting, you'll just feel betrayed and misled.

I Could Never Be Your Woman is the first film directed by Amy Heckerling (Clueless) in like 7 years. I ended up unexpectedly loving Clueless back then, and this film definitely has that same vibe, as well as many of the same cast members, including Rudd, Stacey Dash, and Wallace Shawn. The movie was a light, fun romantic comedy that I enjoyed quite a bit (though I could have done without Tracy Ullman's "Mother Nature"). Michelle Pfeiffer makes a nice return from her movie hiatus in the lead here, after easing back in with her smaller supporting role in Hairspray earlier this summer. Her daughter is played by Saoirse Ronan, a talented young woman who is gonna be breaking out in a big way in the next year with this and roles in several other really big-name films. But the real star here is definitely Paul Rudd, who has proved to be one of the funniest guys around right now. Between this, his involvement with the Apatow crowd, his participation in all manner of projects by alumni of The State, and the rest of his work, he definitely knows how to find good projects and surround himself with equally talented people.

So much unrealized potential. It's a funny concept, and it has its moments, but is ultimately a bit disappointing. A much-hyped gathering of an all-star list of actors, yet of the three major players, only Robert Downey Jr turns in a performance worth watching. Surprisingly, one of the strongest in the bunch was supporting player Jay Baruchel.

Two actors managed to really hurt this fim: Danny McBride manages to not be funny now for the second time this month after Pineapple Express. Why are they trying to make this guy a star?

Then there's Tom. The worst case of horrible stunt-casting since Travolta in Hairspray. Tom Cruise's role here would not have even been amusing as a cameo, but they stretch it out into an entire supporting role, and in all his scenes he fails to elicit even a single chuckle. To top it off, he is featured in a pointless scene at the very end and over the credits that was so annoying and unfunny it was almost enough to make me dock its rating another whole star.

I must admit, this is one of those films I woud never have even seen if it hadn't been for all its awards attention. An Indian-based film with no-name actors, large sections of it subtitled, and centered around a lame game show? But while it didn't blow me away as it has so many others, and it definitely has its problems, I was fairly impressed. Much of this is due to the talented direction of Danny Boyle, and the convincing performance of his lead actor Dev Patel.



I do recommend seeing it, but don't let the hype set your expectations too high.

The problem with doing movies like this, with simultaneous/intersecting storylines, is that no matter how you handle it, you're going to put off some viewers. If you handle it Pulp Fiction-style, intercutting and jumping around in the chronology, you run risk of confusing more casual moviegoers. If done like Vantage Point, where you repeatedly watch a 15-minute segment and then rewind and watch it again and again from different perspectives, it feels repetitive, and by end it can feel like you only watched a 45-minute movie. In my theater I heard several people getting annoyed with constant "rewinding" after about the third time.



The problem here is that while it was a nice gimmick, the different perspectives didn't serve any real purpose in the end that a more linear version wouldn't have. You spend the whole film watching different people seeing different pieces of the puzzle, but those pieces are never put together by anyone to solve the crime. In the end, all the main players just seem to end up in the same spots through mere coincidence. Throw in some serious predictability and you have a decent flick with a good cast, but one that falls short of expectations.

A harmless if forgettable flick which benefits from up-and-coming actress Kat Dennings. Offset, however, by the casting of Michael Cera - a major problem for the movie. I simply cannot get past the fact that it is near impossible to believe one of the girls would be in love with this no-personality dork, much less two of them fighting for his attention.
...and for a film with this title, apparently centered around music, the characters all sure love a whole lot of mediocre bands and music.

Making a direct sequel to Casino Royale was the biggest mistake. Bond has never had them, and Ian Fleming didn't write it. Why mess with a proven formula? But they did, and the result is one of the more mediocre Bond films in recent years, and one that feels short and somewhat unsatisfying.

Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The story is very weak. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland as well. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the action often feels hollow.
...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.

Marc Forster, director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, and the unwatchable Stay, just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.

I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just the second part of Royale," that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.

I love the way Will Smith is managing his career, alternating popcorn blockbusters with more serious fare. After this summer's Hancock, this one reunites him with the team behind Pursuit of Happyness, with mixed results. The performances by all involved, especially Will, are quite good. But the story itself is not all that it wants to be.

Unfortunately, this is one of those films that tries too hard to have a surprise ending... a twist, a secret. And the marketing has played it up even more. But by 15 minutes in, you already know exactly where it's headed and can probably guess the ending.


***MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW***

Two other problems:
1) Wouldn't the toxic poisons in the jellyfish's sting that kills him affect the heart and make it unusable?
2) I'm fairly certain you can't specifically designate the recipient of post-death donations of organs like hearts. It goes down the list, to avoid people "selling" their organs.

After Blair Witch and Cloverfield, the cinema verite' trend this time takes on the zombie genre, with mostly positive results. The first-person gimmick is put to good use, but it works best with a cast of unknowns. It's diminished a bit here by the presence of several recognizable actors.

Good build-up for the first half or so, but toward the end it begins to get a bit repetitive and cliche. If you're the kind of person who goes to haunted houses and jumps and screams (repeatedly) at things jumping out at you that you already knew were there, this film will be right up your alley. A decent horror flick overall.

Too bad the marketing department decided to use the final shot of the movie as the money shot in each and every commercial and trailer, and as the poster art!

This may be the biggest budget fan film of all time. Sure, much has been made of all its admitted "homages" to other films, but essentially this whole film is just a series of copycat scenes strung together - Escape from New York, The Road Warrior, Gladiator,The Warriors... hell, they even have a guy head-to-toe in leather who is called "The Gimp". Almost every scene can be directly traced to another film.

Originality (and coherence) aside, it's a fun action flick. It's not afraid to go all-out with its hardcore action and gore, and the stunts are predominantly non-CGI. The story itself is okay, but the movie can't seem to decide its tone, shifting greatly about every 30 minutes. The biggest drawback may very well be its lead actress, Rhona Mitra. They successfully portray her character as a skilled, badass soldier, but she is quite wooden as an actress, and sports one facial expression through the entire film (Not to mention many shots of her suggest the filmmakers seem to think she's way hotter than she is).

..as for that ending: PLEASE tell me they aren't going to try to make more of these. As a single film, it's a decent adventure, but I don't see it sustaining more than one.

One last note: It's a little odd seeing Adrian Lester playing another of the soldiers. I watched him just last week in the Shakespeare comedy As You Like It, and am more used to seeing him in things like Primary Colors or the series Hustle.

I struggled on whether to give this film a slightly positive(3) or slightly negative(2.5) rating. Carell, Hathaway, Johnson, and Arkin all do a fine job and are quite entertaining, but the writing is fairly lame in parts, and the rest of the supporting cast has major issues.

Steve Carell has shown with Dan in Real Life and Little Miss Sunshine that he can do some different roles - which is good, because when he does straight-up comedies he seems to play the same character every time. It is a very entertaining character, but he's in danger of being typecast.
He and Anne Hathaway have a good chemistry here, and carry most of the movie fairly well. I wish Dwayne Johnson had more to do, as I find him quite entertaining, but his career is going in directions I'm not liking.

The inclusion of characters Bruce and Lloyd is the worst kind of shameless marketing. They exist here only to justify the release of a direct-to-dvd tie-in movie, "Bruce & Lloyd Out of Control", releasing only 11 days later. The film's lowest point is the completely pointless, humorless cameo by Bill Murray. What the hell was the point of that?
Like the cast, the writing has its ups and downs as well. In the end, though, the appeal of the leads won out and I can give a reserved thumbs-up to the movie as a whole.

What I expected to be just another teens-on-vacation horror flick like Turistas or Hostel turned out to be a pretty solid thriller. Rather than rely on gore or over-the-top kills like most recent flicks in the genre (Saw, anything by Eli Roth, etc), or just random creepy imagery (as all the asian horror flicks and their remakes do), The Ruins actually opts for more of a slow-burning, contantly increasing sense of fear and tension - much more effectively scary, in my opinion. It has a couple relatively gory moments, and a few scares of the cheap "jump" variety, but they are used sparingly and effectively. The ending doesn't quite live up to it, however, as it's a bit quick and anti-climactic, but overall I found the film to be one of the more enjoyable horror flicks I've seen in a while.

** Bonus points for not watering it down for a PG-13 rating like so many other "horror" flicks these days.

Crooked cop dramas are about as tired as mob/mafia movies, so I went into this reluctantly interested only in the cast. And while the story did just cover the same old territory, the performances really carried the film - Colin Farrell especially, including one scene which is about as shocking as any I've ever seen (resulting in an oddly satisfying ending).

Clint Eastwood movies have never done much for me. As an actor, he holds little appeal to me, and most of the films have been great cures for insomnia. While this one didn't change my mind about him, I didn't hate it.

The story is nothing groundbreaking, but it's sufficient enough to hold your interest for a couple hours. Eastwood really stretches his range here, playing the grizzly old man who spends the whole film growling and snarling. (can you sense my sarcasm?) As for the rest of the cast, I can't remember when I've heard stiffer dialogue reading. It sounded like a bad high school play.

Acting aside, it's actually a decent movie, but once again, I am truly baffled by the praise and awards talk.

An interesting, if overlong, documentary on the famed "walk between the towers". However, Like many of the critics' list darlings this year, it's overrated. Enjoyable enough, but far from a 5-Star or Top Ten film.

The first Transporter flick was fun. It came from out of nowhere, was greatly entertaining, and showed Jason Statham to be a true action star.



The second film proved largely disappointing, due largely to some cartoonishly unbelievable sequences that exceeded any suspension of disbelief. However, upon watching it again recently, it's still a somewhat enjoyable flick.



This third entry again falls far short of the original. Aside from one or two good fight scenes, I found it actually somewhat boring in parts, and I didn't care for the girl at all.

The biggest drawback, however, is the baffling inclusion of a gimmick far better suited for a Crank sequel than Transporter . It's unnecessary and completely out of place.



There are a couple exciting scenes that remind us why we liked Transporter in the first place, but like the last entry, this one pales in comparison to the original.

So humiliating... File this one under my "embarrassing guilty pleasures." The plot is as cliche as they get, and some of the dialogue is just awful, but what can I say? I'm a sucker for dance movies.

Moulin Rouge currently sits at #5 on my all-time favorites list. I am also a big fan of Romeo + Juliet. So one of the biggest appeals for me of this film was Baz Luhrman. But he was also my biggest worry. How would his directorial style fit with a more straightforward film like this?

While there were a few things here and there that seemed odd out-of-place, the direction was for the most part fine. The film is beautifully shot, although there is a noticable reliance on cgi backgrounds and such in many shots.
The acting was adequate, and Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman both play their parts just fine, though neither is anything award-worthy.

The story itself is where the problem lies - a fairly forgettable story drawn out over an unnecessarily long running time. There was far too much focus put on the young aboriginal boy, Nullah, even providing the narration for the film, essentially indicating the film being told from his point-of-view. All this despite the fact that he is one of the least interesting characters in the film, and the kid is not a very good actor.

Though I love Baz, Hugh, and Nicole, I went into this with high hopes but low expectations. I was right do to so.

Westerns don't come along too often anymore, and good westerns are even more rare. Judging from the cast and trailers, I had high hopes that Appaloosa would fit the bill. Sadly, my optimism was once again rewarded with disappointment. Harris, Mortensen, Irons, Henriksen... they all do fine jobs, but the story itself and Ed Harris' direction don't live up to the individual performances.

Renee Zellweger is by far the weakest part of the movie, as she has been in every film she's ever been in, and will be in any film she ever does in the future. Someone please kick this woman out of Hollywood!

The Good:
Prince Nuada & Princess Nuala, Hellboy himself, and a couple of the one-on-one fights

The Bad:
Most of the supporting characters, the creature designs, and a lot of bad creature voice dubbing - especially in the dumb "young Hellboy"/blatant exposition prologue

The UGLY:
Selma Blair's acting, the drunk/singing scene, and the love stories (especially the laughable Abe/Princess relationship)

Overall, it's a step down from the first, and left me disappointed.

Not as bad as you might think. It's certainly not particularly intellectual (or original), but it's got fun moments. Just think of it as another in the ongoing American Pie series.

It also gets bonus points for having high school seniors and college kids that actually look their age, rather than having 27-year-old high school kids.
(and a surprisingly competent performance by ex-American Idol contestant Kevin "Chicken Little" Covais)

War, Inc. wants to be a political satire. It also wants to be Grosse Point Blank 2. More accurately, it feels like it's a political satire that they realized needed to be redressed as a GPB-like film if it were to be at all marketable. The result: they failed on both counts.

Cusack has his moments, but even he can't save this from being probably the most disappointing film of the year for me. I really wanted to like this movie. But in the end, it was just forgettable. It's too bad really. This is the kind of role I enjoy Cusack most in, and failures like this will only drive him away from trying again in the future.

The script is a mess, the production feels half-assed, and the pathetic direction was the nail in the coffin. I looked up the director and found out his previous credits are limited to episodes of tv shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and the PBS Kids show "Fetch!" His lack of useful experience shows.

One side note: I have to give Ben Kingsley credit for trying to vary his roles in recent years, rather than settle into the same stuffy roles he could easily sleep his way through, but his choices in doing so are a disaster - this, Thunderbirds, Bloodrayne, Suspect Zero... time to fire your agent, Ben.

I had such high hopes. This was going to be the movie Vacancy wanted to be but failed. But this one fared no better.

The movie starts off very promisingly, with just the right kind of slow-burning creepiness and tension. Unfortunately, from there it devolves into nothing more than a long series of jump-scares, and never really goes anywhere, culminating in a pointless and unsatisfying ending. When will Hollywood make another genuinely scary movie?

It did succeed in one thing , though: That first half ensured that I don't think I'll ever be able to spend the night in a house out in the middle of nowhere.

Ah, nothing like rehab and dead children to brighten up the holidays, right?

There are films that happen to be made independent of studios, and there are those that just wallow in their independent-ness. The amateurish camerawork, the annoying music, the pointless scenes that go on forever in desperate need of an editor...

And it's not even a result of inexperience. No, these were conscious decision made by a proven director (Jonathan Demme - Silence of the Lambs).

Rachel getting Married is a dreary, mediocre, sloppily-made film that coud have been a dreary, mediocre, but well-done film if it hadn't been trying so hard to be "independent."

Solidly acted - but dreary, somewhat boring, and hugely overrated.

This is the second time I've watched a Woody Allen movie, and guess what? He still sucks!

It's interesting to see Colin Farrell play against type, and both he and McGregor do their best, but they can only do so much to overcome Allen's bad writing and direction. These actors deserve better.

This movie was unceremoniously dumped into only 100 screens, and they were all second-run "dollar" theaters. Word is, it was all about studio politics and executive bickering. But did the film itself deserve to be dumped? No.

Not that it's any kind of underrated masterpiece. The cast is strong, led by two up -and-coming stars, Bradley Cooper and Leslie Bibb (most recently seen in Iron Man), and it's better than plenty of recent entries into the genre, but it doesn't feel like enough of a story to carry a whole film. Like many of Clive Barker's films, it woud have made a solid entry in an hour-long horror anthology show, but as a film it's a little weak. It also tips its hand as to how it's going to end pretty early in the film, so there's no real surprise or impact when it finally comes.

But was it worth a $1.50 ticket? Sure it was.

Yeah, I watched it. What can I say? It was free. Anyway, I would have given this flick 2.5 stars, as it's a fairly mediocre, even for a romantic comedy.
...But it loses a full star because it confirms my feeling that I really dont like Katherine Heigl. I don't think she's a good actress, I don't think she is at all likeable, I don't think she's even the slightest bit attractive, and I am baffled at her recent success.
...But then it gains that star back because it also stars James Marsden, who is on a real hot streak and is finally getting some roles that give him a chance to shine.

Easily the weakest of the movies from the Apatow gang. Seth Rogen and James Franco both do fine jobs at portraying their characters, but this one just fails in the writing. The movie is actually quite dull, and all but the two main characters are fairly lame.
And what is the deal with Danny McBride?!? He's not the slightest bit funny, but suddenly he's getting all these featured roles. Let's hope he disappears as fast he appeared on the scene.

Maybe it's funny if you watch it while high yourself. But for the rest of us, it's just humorless and boring.

The latest entry in what is currently the dominant sub-genre of horror movies today: those that are nothing but creepy imagery and jump scares. Mirrors is not a bad movie per se, but nothing particulary worthy of your time.

Plus, I haven't seen a movie take so long to end since Return of the King. (and the final ending it does have is pretty lame)

Essentially just a comedic version of Ghost meets Sixth Sense. Nothing in this film was particuarly bad, but I did not laugh even once in the entire 102 minutes of this film. So as a comedy, it pretty much failed. I enjoyed Gervais' series Extras (and to a lesser extent The Office), but I don't think he's cut out for movies.

It looks like the Coen brothers' best days are behind them. I have always thought their comedies were far superior to their dramas, and this one looked like it might get back to the level of Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, and Hudsucker Proxy.

It did not.

As a traditional 2-D film, this would be considered pretty pathetic. The story, the acting, the plotholes... But let's be honest, this was about the 3-D experience.

The problem is, the 3-D was not particularly impressive. It added some depth to the film on a purely gimmicky level, and was interesting for about the first 15 minutes, but after that it was forgettable and added nothing to the film itself. Perhaps if viewed in an IMAX theater, it would seem more immersive and convincing experience, but on a traditional screen where you are not just surrounded by the image, it's nothing more than a picture on the screen. The blatant "at the audience" moments are especially silly, as they are trying so hard to show off the 3-D, but are unconvincing. I've been to 3-D films where people are reaching out or ducking, but in this one, no one in the theater so much as flinches.

I wanted to like this. But it's just further proof that until they put story first, and not just use the story to string together cool visuals, 3-D will never be anything more than a gimmick niche.

As just a flat film: 1.5 stars, but for 3-D, I'll spot it just an extra half: 2 Stars

When I first saw Fight Club, I was blown away. I ran out to read the book it was based on, and enjoyed that immensely as well. From there I started reading all of Chuck Palahniuk's stuff, growing more and more disappointed by the mediocrity and shock for shock's sake. I began to wonder if I would even have enjoyed Fight Club (the book) if I hadn't first seen the film.

So when I heard they were adapting Choke, I didn't know what to expect. The book failed to impress me, but I like Sam Rockwell.
But no, this movie is just a mess. The story is pointless and uninteresting, and though the source material wasn't very good to start with, it's made even worse by the lacking direction of Clark Gregg.

There is an occasional laugh to be had, but mostly it's just the kind of movie you watch with a blank face, constantly checking your watch.

I no longer have any doubts. The success of Fight Club was due to Fincher, Pitt, and Norton. It certainy wasn't due to Palahniuk, who has shown that Fight Club was just a fluke.

The 80's remakes continue. First they tried to pretend they were original films when the stories were obviously complete copies: Karate Kid became Never Back Down, Dirty Dancing became Step Up, Escape from new York became Doomsday... Then they started calling them sequels: first War Games 2, and now Lost Boys 2. But these sequels are nothing but remakes in disguise.

I consider the original Lost Boys to be a decent, though overrated film. This one, however, is just what you'd expect from a direct-to-video movie. Mediocre and sloppy, but mildly entertaining. Oddly enough, its biggest flaw is its only connection to the original: Corey Feldman. It's like he's trying to be a bad actor here with his horrible acting and line delivery, and his badly tweezed eyebrows and bad wig make him almost unwatchable... Not to mention the fact that it feels like his character was shoved into the story last minute just to add some credibility to the sequel. If they'd left him out, I might've accepted this as the usual mediocre video fare. But Feldman's presence just reminds us of how inferior this flick really is.

p.s. - it loses an additional 1/2 star for mocking "The Goonies" as uncool.

Here I thought M. Night Shyamalan had finally made a movie I would like. The movie even started out very well, setting up a mysterious and interesting premise. But once they start tossing theories around, and acting on those ideas, the film becomes an unintentional comedy. Outrun the wind! Nature only hates us in groups larger than five!

The few moments of intended comedy are the least funny moments in the film, completely out of place and forced. Pointless subplots and relationship issues don't help the matter any. In the end, it's just a boring mess. As one critic stated, "The Happening is a movie to walk out of, sleep through, or - best of all - not to bother with"

Shyamalan's films have gotten progressively worse with each new one, and this is easily one of his worst, but I don't think I can call it worse than his Lady in the Water.

I've never been a big fan of the Mummy movies. They're pale imitations of Indiana Jones, with far inferior story, acting, and action. I had hoped replacing hack director Sommers with Rob Cohen would give this one a chance. But this one gives Mummy Returns a run for its money as worst of the series.

Let's start with the characters. I don't know why Bello couldn't just play a new woman in our hero's life, but fine, whatever... she was the least of the film's problems. The son? Just as bad an actor as Fraser, and oh, did I mention he's like 20 years old? Figuring dad was about 30 in the first film, that Fraser's character... 50 now? I hope I look so young at 50.

Speaking of time passage - 9 years have passed since the first film was released, about 20 years have apparently passed in the story, and 0 years of progress has been made by the effects crew. Seriously, even in 1999 the first film's effects were way behind the times, paling in comparison to Phantom Menace and The Matrix. Yet the visuals here are every bit as bad, if not WORSE than they were back then. The "mummies", the Yeti, ...everything. Just horrible. Laughably bad.

This one also tries to rip off Indiana Jones even more than the others. One early scene is practically a copy of Raiders' opening temple scene, and even the music in parts seemed lifted straight from John Williams' scores. Then there's the dad who suffers a mortal wound, whose only chance is the healing power found in the temple they were racing the bad guys to. Sound a little Last Crusade? Ugh.

What a complete pile of crap. A decent basic story concept, but written, directed, and filmed with complete ineptitude and lack of talent.
The film thinks it's so smart - thinks it's so creative and stylish - thinks it's such a deep commentary - pretending its more mature and meaningful than any of the "torture porn" films of late. But no, this is far from what they think it is. It's just a terrible movie. It gets one full star only due to a decent cast.

...and to those who think i just don't "get it": I get it. I get what they thought they had to say. But knowing a film's intentions doesn't excuse it being a horribly-made pathetic waste of film.

It's every bit as bad as you've heard... and then some. Quite possibly one of the worst films I have ever seen, and definitely the worst of the year. The only movie that could come close to being worse this year is Disaster Movie, but I won't be seeing that one, so Mike Myers has a lock on the bottom spot.

Where do I start? Well let's just say you know you're in trouble when the first line in the movie is about growing up in a village called "Harenmahkeester" (the first of an endless stream of horribly unfunny puns and names), and the movie ends with elephants humping. Yeah, Fornicating elephants. In between, it never gets any better.

Every joke is just drawn out and repeated and driven into the ground, despite the fact that they weren't funny the first time - The repeated use of "Mariska Hargitay", the lame acronyms, all of it.

They couldn't get anything right in this movie. There are random pointless cameos by all sorts of people, including Mariska, Jessica Simpson, Val Kilmer, Deepak Chopra, Oprah Winfrey, that add nothing to the film. There's a scene of Myers' character as a kid where they superimpose his head on the kid's body, but it's not even made the right size, so it looks even dumber than the original idea. Hell, the movie opens with a shot obviously trying to match with the Paramount logo (a la Indiana Jones), but they shoved the "Spyglass Entertainment" logo in between, so even that doesn't work.
And c'mon... Jessica Alba as Myers' love interest?? That's some serious wishful thinking on his part, it's completely unbelievable, and... kinda creepy.

At only 81 minutes (not counting credits), they obviously couldn't find much worth including, but if this is the stuff that was considered funny enough to make the cut, I'd really hate to see what didn't.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new winner for WORST film of 2008: THE SPIRIT (Keeping in mind I never saw the likely winner by far: Disaster Movie).

It starts out just looking silly, then is just plain bad; but as it goes on, every time you think it's hit it's low point, it gets worse.
Where to start? The look? It's easy to compare its style to Sin City based on its spot-color, cgi-background visuals. But it didn't work for that movie, and it's even less worthwhile here. Between the annoying look and the HORRIBLE writing, I don't know if they worked in the graphic novel, but it damn sure don't here. There is such a thing as too faithful to source material.
The acting? A new low for every actor involved, especially Scarlett Johannson - she never could act, but is worse here than ever. I have to think that every actor in it looks at the finished film and is simply embarrassed.
But the worst of the worst here - the biggest share of the blame - is writer/director Frank Miller. He manages to fail at every imaginable aspect of the film. Stick to the comic medium, Frank. You're first directorial effort is officially a steaming pile of crap and a disaster of epic proportions.