2009: Best-to-Worst

J.J. Abrams has taken Trek and infused it with Star Wars-style action and excitement (in addition to numerous plot similarities). After creating one of the best TV shows ever (Lost), then making the best of the Mission: Impossible films, I was sure he could bring exciting new life to a dying (if not dead) franchise. ...and he didn't disappoint. The action works, the humor works, the drama works... and most importantly the casting is perfect. The best characters in this movie were Bones (Karl Urban) and Scotty (Simon Pegg), and I hope they (along with Anton Yechin's Chekov and John Cho's Sulu) are given much more to do in future installments. Zachary Quinto did a fine take on Spock, though I wasn't blown away like so many people seem to be. If I have one complaint about this film, it's that they chose to focus so much on Spock, whom I've always considered one of the weaker and more overrated characters.

There are other tiny things - the pointless and odd casting of Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry, the use of 20th Century cars and music (written off as "retro"), etc. - but that's mostly just nitpicking. So, while not a perfect film, it's a damn fun ride, and by FAR the best Star Trek movie to date. It's also, so far, the film to beat for 2009. A fun flick on every level.

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!"

It's easy to, as many people have, immediately start comparing this film to Shaun of the Dead, but it's really unfair to simplify it so much. Just because they are both comedies that deal with zombies does not make it a knock-off.

No, this film is original, well-done, and a helluva lot of fun. As a comedy it succeeds completely, with plenty of laughs from beginning to end. Extra points for a hilarious cameo appearance (which I won't spoil here - seriously, avoid reviews until you see the film and beware of spoilers!) And even as just a zombie film it works on every level. I'd say it already ranks as one of my all-time top three zombie flicks. Ruben Fleischer is going to be a director to watch in the next few years.

One of my favorite films of the year thus far. Likable characters, a unique voice, and a perfect pair of leads. (...and let me add, I preferred Autumn ;))

I am truly disappointed that they have, for the time being at least, decided to stop making X-Men films. While I still don't think they've gotten one quite perfect, I love the films and the X-Men universe. With such a deep roster of characters, the series could last for decades. But now we're just seeing spin-offs - Wolverine being the first, with a Magneto film and a New Mutants-ish film both in the plans so far. But even a spinoff of X-Men is gonna get me excited, and Wolverine is a great place to start.

I was cautiously optimistic about this film, but it turns out any hesitations were unfounded. It's great fun - on par with the best of the series so far. To keep this spoiler-free, I'll just keep it general:

They rush through much of the early history (much of it in the opening credits montage), but I suppose that was necessary to keep the focus on the specific story they were telling. Liev Schreiber does a fantastic job as Victor Creed, and Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool is just perfect casting. Unfortunately, Deadpool and some other characters really seem shoe-horned in here as nothing more than extended cameos. Same goes for Gambit. His character feels tacked on just to placate audience demand. Taylor Kitsch has the right look, and his acting is fine, but his accent is all over the place - sometimes Cajun, sometimes Texas southern drawl, and sometimes no accent at all.

The look of the film seems much more down-to-earth, avoiding the gloss and costume look that made the earlier X-films seem a bit too artificial. The action sequences are exciting, and while there's no big surprises in the film, it does entertain. But like the last X-Men film, a few disappointing decisions the filmmakers made really complicate options for future films.

and yes, as is standard with Marvel films these days, stay through the END of the credits for a tease of what's to come. TWO different post-credits tags actually, one showing on some prints, one on others. (in addition to a Stryker scene early in the credits)

The Hangover is essentially just Dude, Where's My Car meets Bachelor Party. So nothing terribly original, but definitely hilarious. While many are praising Zach Galifianakis (who was funny, but sometimes trying too hard), I found Ed Helms to be the funniest of the bunch.

Only two things really detracted from my enjoyment of this movie. 1) In an otherwise well-done comedy, a couple times the jokes were just huge duds (c'mon, that wedding singer? LAME.) and 2) The trailer: This is one of those movies where practically every funny moment in the film, you've already seen in the trailer. So upon seeing the movie, the jokes aren't as fresh or funny. But that isn't a criticism of the movie itself. Just another example of annoying movie marketing.

The Hangover is likely the best comedy we'll see this year.

Push feels like it exists very much in the same universe as Jumper. The heroes, the villains, the conflicts... the films share many similarities. They both put a more real-world twist on the superpowers genre, and both do their best to entertain. Unfortunately, Push also shares all the same problems that held back Jumper.

Primary among these is that rather than tell a self-contained story and let the audience decide if they want to see more, they've obviously tried to set this up as the first in a series, complete with a wide open ending. But in doing so, they've probably killed their own chances, as this makes for a good but unsatisfying movie.

It's a shame really, because the world they created here is quite interesting, if nothing particularly groundbreaking. The cast is strong (with the exception of the bland Camilla Belle), and there are several rather imaginative action scenes.

Push is like an X-Men film without the gloss, and without the baggage of 40 years of comics and fanboy expectations. It's like tv's Heroes... though unlike Heroes it has interesting characters, exciting storylines, and about 1000% better acting. It's like Jumper if... ok, it's exactly like Jumper - the good and the bad.

Clooney. McGregor. Bridges.

Three of my favorite actors, plus a great supporting cast. It's gotta be great, right? But too many times I've seen great ensemble casts come together only to be disappointed by a mediocre film. This time, however, it lived up to my expectations. The movie does lose a bit of steam in the last half hour or so, but overall it's definitely an entertaining film.

A few years back, a failed comedian decided to write a lame book masquerading as a breakthrough relationship manual, stating the most obvious facts and cliches, making every woman out to be in oblivious denial, and every man out to be a jerk. For some baffling reason, Oprah gave it her golden seal of approval and all of her zombie followers gobbled it up. Then, Drew Barrymore decided it needed to be a movie, and set out to produce it. Ugh.



Now, let me say right off the bat I have no problem with romantic comedies. There are plenty that I like. Relationships between men and women are perfect fodder for comedy. But while mosty enjoyable, this film is kinda hit-and-miss, but succeeds due to an impressive cast.



Yes, like the book, the movie essentially paints every guy as a jerk (to various degrees and in their own different ways), and every woman as in oblivious denial. Sure, there are plenty of funny and cute moments, but the factor that keeps this from being an even better film is the same one that plagues many similar ensemble films like Love Actually: Too many storylines.



There are stories and characters you care about, and then there are the ones you don't - The ones that just make you spend every minute of their screentime waiting to get back to the ones you DO care about. Barrymore even casts herself in a completely pointless, tacked-on role that really has no purpose in the film. So the film feels spread too thin, especially over an unnecessary 2 hour and 20 minutes running time.



What does work, and quite well, is the individual performances, most notably Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long. It's so great to see them together again after both getting their first big break on Ed. (WHEN will that come out on DVD?!!?) Unusual choices for the leads, to be sure, but they are perfect for their parts. The rest of the actors do fine as well, but they can only carry the film so far before it falls victim to the mediocrity of its source material. In all, it's a fairly amusing flick, but one that thinks it is far more insightful than it really is.



*I give it bonus points for a scene involving/discussing the most underrated of John Hughes' films, Some Kind of Wonderful. I feel like I was the only person in the crowded theater who had a clue what they were talking about.

While I'm always annoyed a bit at movies which portray the press (especially newspapers) as so noble and important, there have been a few that I've really enjoyed (The Paper jumps to mind). Often it's all contingent on the cast. Originally this was to have starred Brad Pitt and Edward Norton - a reteaming I would have loved to see - but after seeing the film, I'm not sure Pitt would have been right for it. He would have done fine, I'm sure, but it would certainly have been a different film. I didn't care much for Crowe early on - his look, his character... but he grew on me. And as the face of "new" journalism in the internet age, Rachel McAdams was perfect, if a bit underused. Still, it's nice to see her resurface after an extended absence from the big screen. Helen Mirren and Jason Bateman turn in their usual great performances... The entire cast does, really. Affleck is the weakest link, but even he does a sufficient job (though I still don't buy him and Crowe as old college buddies).

The story itself was a decent thriller, though by the end the twists, turns, and revelations got to be a bit much. I'm not quite sure I would care to see the whole original BBC miniseries, as this film's running time was more than enough to cover the story. Anything more would be just filler and unnecessary tangents.

I was ready to write this off as just another passable romantic comedy, but a couple reviews from guys I usually agree with made me give it a look. And sure enough, it turned out to be pretty fun. As "Christmas Carol" films go, this one is closest in tone and style to the best of them all, Scrooged.

Say what you will about Matthew McConaughey, but the guy picks roles that suit him very well. Lately he has setted into being the go-to guy for the tired romantic comedy genre, but this one's different. This is really a romantic comedy told from a guy's point-of-view. Plus it's directed by Mark Waters, who made another very guy-watchable chick-flick with Mean Girls. It's fun, it's witty, and even a bit touching, and a great supporting cast brings it all to life, with Michael Douglas as the films "Marley" and Lacey Chabert as the high-strung bride being the stand-outs.

Fanboys is a film aimed squarely at me. I was one of those guys who was just the right age when Star Wars came out, so I was in the middle of the frenzy from Episode 4 all the way to Episode 3 (that sounds backwards, but its not). The devotion, the anticipation, the geekiness - not only to Star Wars, but to pop culture of all kinds (80's cartoons were the bomb, yo!)

It's a great idea, and a fun movie, but falls short of what I'd hoped for. Unfortunately, the film is trying way too hard. Everything feels forced. Too many quotes shoved awkwardly into normal conversations. Too many parallels between itself and scenes from the SW films. Too many references and lifeless cameos. Despite a great main cast (supporting roles/cameos are a different story), the film feels very amateurish. It's really just a feature-length fan film that has recognizable stars. Having seen it now, I'm surprised it was given as wide a release as it was. Still, it's got lots of fun moments and really makes me nostalgic for my younger fanboy years.

It's probably only at best a 3 out of 5, but I bumped it an extra half because its heart was in the right place ...and because it has the already-hot Kristen Bell in a Leia slavegirl outfit.

What starts out as just an average sci-fi flick really kicks into high gear in the second half when they start breaking out the alien weaponry. Impressive action from first-time director Neil Blokamp.

(updated) Let's get this out of the way first - This is NOT "T4". This is "Future War" #1. It is the first in a new, separate series of films that happens to have connections to the earlier trilogy. If you keep that in mind when seeing this, you'll enjoy it much more. But I know a lot of people aren't going to like this, because they are going in expecting it to be just like the others.



A lot of people are dumping on McG. Yes, he has a dumb nickname, and yes he made the atrocious Charlie's Angels movies, but he has shown some talent in other projects. People are too critical of anyone but Cameron doing these films, but as Cameron himself pointed out, fans were worried when he inherited the "Alien" franchise from Ridley Scott much like McG has to follow in Cameron's footsteps. The direction here is fine.



The casting choices are a bit of a mixed bag. Anton Yelchin is surprisingly the best of the group as Kyle Reese. I like Bryce Dallas Howard, but she's barely in it, nor is Helena Bonham Carter (what was the point?). Christian Bale, while doing a fine job, didn't add much to the role. Anyone could have played it here (and the "gruff" voice he uses for his action fims is getting a bit old). Same for Sam Worthington. He's fine in the role, but nothing special. He's become the latest "it" actor Hollywood wants to shove down our throats (this, James Cameron's Avatar, the Clash of the Titans remake), but I haven't yet seen anything to merit the hype.



The biggest disappointment is the writing. Rather than just give us the humans vs. machines war we wanted, they decide to introduce a "good" terminator, and have the story focus WAAAAAY too much on him. Big mistake. Overall, this may not have everything we all hoped for in the "Future War" film, but it's an okay start. Let's see where it goes from here...



*SPOILERS FOLLOW*

A brief note: Though it's not a well-kept secret by any means, yes, Arnold has a cameo in the film. I thought it was extremely well-done without being overdone. He truly looked like his younger self from the first Terminator, thanks to some CG wizardry that put his (de-aged) face onto another actor's body. (Though I was amused when I heard two ladies in my theater say "wow, he looks amazing for his age! Look at that body!") I hear Robert Patrick may make an appearance in the next film. I hope it is handled as well and doesn't feel forced.

Surprisingly entertaining. Don't write this off as a "cheerleader movie". It's actually more geared towards guys, and I laughed quite a bit. It's not art, nor does it pretend to be. It's just fun. The plot? Oh, it's totally predictable. The cast? No WAY are 90% of them high school students, but it's still fun. Eric Christian Olsen is a very funny guy who deserves to be getting more comedic roles.

Drag Me To Hell has its share of genuine creepiness and chills. For most of the first half of the film, I was fairly impressed. It's refreshing to have a genuinely effective horror film that isn't all about gore. But unfortunately, there are overly cartoonish moments (and they occur more frequently as the film goes on) that would feel right at home in some of Raimi's earlier works, but here they clash with the tone of the rest of the film and feel completely out of place. Moments like these really detract from the film.

Alison Lohman doesn't do a horrible job, but she didn't impress me at all. I would have preferred to see it with the originally cast Ellen Page, but after shooting to stardom following Juno, she left this project to do... Whip It? A shame - this would have been a much more interesting choice. Justin Long has the thankless boyfriend role that isn't big enough for him to do much with.

Minor vague spoilers ahead:
It bothered me that they tried to play the "mix-up" as a big surprise. Did anyone NOT see that coming from the very first hint of it? But, I gotta say, I definitely did NOT see the very ending coming at all. The way it played out was both bold and surprising.

Delayed for two years and then dumped onto DVD, there has been a lot of praise and hype for this film. Unfortunately, all that anticipation does is set expectations high and it ends up disappointing.

There's a reason it didn't open in theaters. It's just not a strong enough film and would have bombed hard. But it's the perfect kind of film to rent with some friends and watch during the Halloween season. It's light-hearted and simple fun. Just don't go in expecting too much.

Robert Downey Jr once again elevates an otherwise average film with another outstanding performance. Fairly forgettable, but a nice character piece and acting showcase. One problem the film has is that it touches on subplots that either have noting to do with the story (falling readership/stock prices at the newspaper resulting in more and more layoffs), or that it completely abandons (the city's promise to spend more to address the poverty issue in the area turns out to just be cracking down on arrests and pushing people off the streets).

I told my daughter we could see a movie, and other than A Christmas Carol (which I will NOT see), this was it for options. But it's voiced by Dwayne Johnson, Justin Long, Gary Oldman, and John Cleese, and the concept was amusing, so there was hope.

It is what it is. Groundbreaking and original? No. But as animated films go this year, surprisingly it's leading the (admittedly weak) pack. It's better than Ice Age, Cloudy/Meatballs, Monsters vs Aliens, and yes, storywise it's far more interesting than Up. Wow, that IS a weak year for animated films. Let's hope Princess & the Frog brings the goods.

I liked the film... until about the time the balloons went up. Pixar doesn't make a bad film, but Up is one of their weaker ones, in large part because of an area they are usually masters of: characters. The movie starts out well. We meet our main character and his wife (Carl & Ellie) and they are very likable. We grow quite attached to them and feel for Carl. But aside from those two, there's not much to like. I didn't like the dogs at all (including Dug), I REALLY didn't like (or care about) the bird and that whole part of the plot, and didn't even really care for the kid (Russell). Actually, one other I did like was Muntz, and I think he kinda got screwed. He wasn't a bad guy, and I would have liked to have seen some redemption for him.

Visually, of course, the film is beautifully done (aside from the ugly square-face design of Carl). Pixar is still the master of the genre. But what has made them so successful is their combination of great visuals AND top-notch stories. Unfortunately, as much as I enjoyed the prologue, the rest of the story this time out is uninteresting and kinda lame. Like Monsters Inc and Cars, I'm sure I'll watch it more in the future because of my kids, but I don't think I'd ever go out of my way to see it again.

A passable, if forgettable, film that has its share of fun moments, and most of the cast does a fine job, especially Kristen Wiig, Ellen Page, and lesser-known Wilson brother Andrew. On the negative side: Jimmy Fallon and a horrible soundtrack.

First time director Drew Barrymore seemed far more concerned with the personal relationships than with the action, and that shows, as the actual derby scenes were surprisingly lacking in much excitement. Still, there's nothing really to dislike in the film - it's just not all tt it could have been.

A few important things to know going into this film:
1) The titular "Basterds", including Brad Pitt, are barely in it.
2) The film is about 70% foreign language with subtitles
3) Pretty much every bit of actual action in the film is shown in the trailer (actually the trailer includes MORE, as there are some notable missing shots)

Now none of those things are inherently bad, but when it's been marketed as an action flick, in English, starring Brad Pitt and his merry men... well, you're gonna disappoint a LOT of people. I'm actually surprised (and impressed) that they would trust American audiences to endure subtitles. There's a scene early on where mid-conversation a character basically says, "Can we speak English for the rest of the conversation?" and it just felt like a HUGE cop-out, but then much... MUCH of the rest of the film returned to foreign dialogue.

The story is the typical Tarantino revenge flick, this time living out the fantasy of taking out Hitler and his goons. There are some solid scenes, ideas, and characters, but it's all prevented from being what it could have been by Tarantino's annoying quirks and style.
Yes, the biggest problem with this film is that it's made by Quentin Tarantino. ...His obsession with 1970's film style, his penchant for using lame, anachronistic music as the soundtrack, and especially his lack of editing ability -both in shots and in unnecessarily overly long dialogue scenes. The acting, on the other hand, was quite impressive for the most part. Although Pitt never felt right for it at all - not because he was bad, but because the material and underdeveloped character were beneath him. ..and don't even get me started on the pointless Mike Myers cameo.

Sloppy, loud, incoherent and waaaaay over-the-top, but a helluva lot of fun. Not for the easily offended or those who hate quick editing and fast, shaky action. They've taken everything they did with the first Crank (a great guilty pleasure flick) and multiplied it by ten. Profanity, violence, sex, carnage... this film revels in it. It coud've rated higher, but there were a few parts that were just way too out there even for me - namely the unnecessary "man-in-suit" Godzilla-style scene and the young Chev talk show scene.
Supporting cast and cameos are as random as they come with Corey Haim, Lauren Holly, David Carradine, and Ginger Spice/Geri Halliwell.

This movie is like if the guys who made the Crank movies made a ripoff of Death Race and threw in elements of The Sims. ...Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.

Yes, the Crank guys have shown they are one-note directors. The style here might have seemed original and fitting of the film's surreal in-game atmosphere, if only they hadn't already used it in their other films. As it is,the film has nothing original, but still manages to be fun. One thing they certainly don't skimp on is the action. And how can you not like a movie that starts out with a live-action teabag?!?
The cast is so very random, with small pointless parts for people like Alison Lohman and Milo Ventimiglia. Butler does just fine, but the real standout here is Michael C. Hall, who surprised me by making for a perfect cocky, smarmy, egomaniacal villain.

This film is a perfect example of "if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the whole movie."

The trailer actually made it look pretty good, but since they decided to show everything, there were no surprises left. It's disappointing, really, that the marketing of this film detracted from it, because it was actually pretty well-made - A great cast, nicely directed, and has a real terror feel to it.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*
(only if you haven't seen the trailer, of course)

When I say they showed everything, I mean EVERYTHING. Including what was basically the entire last segment of the film. The film seemed to end, and I actually thought they had made changes, and certain scenes from the trailer were not in the film after all, but sure enough it cuts back to show the villain's demise, which basically felt tacked on for the sole purpose of having a trailer shot to market it... maybe that's exactly what it was.

I can say without a doubt that this is the best subtitled Norwegian movie about Nazi zombies that I have ever seen.

All kidding aside, it really is a decent addition to the zombie genre. At times it's a typical cabin-in-the-woods horror flick, other times it leans more into Shaun of the Dead territory. But it gets points for creativity, and for opting for fast zombies rather than the slow "zombie shuffle" variety. (and it's always refreshing these days to see a zombie film that doesn't try to turn it into a "virus" or something)

*SPOILER*
Not the film I expected or hoped for it to be. I was very excited about the whole mysterious numbers/end-of-the-world thing, and I LOVED that they had the balls to actually have the world end, but the whole alien angle really detracted from the flick. Take out all that and I'd rank it higher.

Adventureland struck me as kind of an emo version of an 80's John Hughes flick. It's got angst, quirkiness, comedy, and heart - all wrapped in an 80's soundtrack. Unfortunately, while many of Hughes' films were hysterical from start-to-finish, this one is far more low-key than the marketing would have you believe, and most every "funny" moment was shown in the trailer.

My major complaint is its 80's setting. Completely unnecessary. Why set a film 20 years ago when it serves NO purpose whatsoever? Theme parks still exist today, and nothing else in the film required it to be set in that era. So we're subjected to horrible 80's fashion and music for no reason.

The supporting cast far outshines the two leads. Hader and Wiig are criminally underused, and Martin Starr goes back to his "Freaks and Geeks" roots for what is probably the best performance of the film. Jesse Eisenberg does a passable job, but is a bit too neurotic and whiny for my tastes, and Kristen Stewart, well... it's now evident that she peaked with "Panic Room" and everything since then is further proof the girl cannot act.

A decent film, and worth a watch, but another disappointment for 2009.

As the new Friday the 13th starts, it feels like a throwback to the slasher flicks of the 80's. The characters are stereotypes, the story is paper thin, the gore is plentiful, and the sex and nudity is gratuitous. It's all somewhat fun. But then as the film wears on, you begin to realize just why the heyday of this kind of film faded away - the truth is they aren't very good. It starts to feel monotonous, not only as just another slasher flick, but even within this film alone. More kills, more jump scares... its all just more of the same, over and over.

Whereas the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead were both huge improvements over the originals, this one just feels like another entry in the series. Of course, it still manages to be probably one of the best of the series - that's just not saying much when you realize just how cheesy some of the past films were.

If you're looking to just see some creative kills (though they aren't very creative here), naked 20-somethings, and cheap scares, this film will more than do the job. But almost any horror film these days can meet those low standards. Just don't go in expecting anything more than what it is - just another mediocre horror film.

Marketed as some kind of action thriller, The International is really more of a slow conspiracy drama with one MAJOR action scene. Overall, an adequate but forgettable film, BUT... that one scene - a shoot-out in the Guggenheim - almost makes up for the rest of the fim's shortcomings. It is, in my opinion, one of the best shoot-outs in modern film, right up there with scenes from Heat, Open Range, and Way of the Gun (both the early kidnapping scene and the final conflict - seriously, see that movie!)

I can't review this film without hinting at MAJOR SPOILERS, so consider yourselves warned.... Still here? okay.

Why does every thriller feel it has to have a big "twist"? What could have been a decent flick is completely thrown away in favor of a lame twist that not only can we see coming a mile away, but that was made even more obvious by the TV commercials touting its big twist. And once again, the surprise is one that makes many earlier scenes make no sense whatsoever. Worse still is the movie's wink-wink self-awareness, as the characters discuss a movie's need for Act II twists and red herrings. All these attempts to be clever and original have exactly the opposite effect and kill the movie.

Technically, it's a fine film. The direction works, the acting is sufficient, and best of all, the setting is beautiful - hell, it made me want to jump on a plane to Hawaii. Too bad the script was such a waste.

Add a review (optional)...

The Ice Age franchise continues its track record of mediocrity. The characters are bland, and the story uninspiring, and even the "action" scenes feel hollow and uninvolving. Apparently, even the filmmakers knew they didn't have enough story for a full film, because once again they resort to fiilling time with the pointless, monotonous, one-joke "Scrat" storyline, which has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film.

This time however, they try to compensate with the gimmick of 3-D. Yet once again, it proves to be just that - a gimmick - and it actually takes away from the film. The problem is - too many scenes, sequences, and shots are obviously constructed solely to show off the 3-D, and the movie suffers as a result. And once it hits DVD, where there will be no 3-D (or the horrible looking red/blue version) these flaws wil become even more prominent.

Still, the animation is decent, and Simon Pegg's Buck is the first interesting character in the series, so the movie isn't a complete disaster - Just an example of how audiences will flock to any animated film, no matter how mediocre... especially if they jazz it up with 3-D.

From the director of Shakespeare in Love(??) comes this Elmore Leonard adaptation, delayed for years and finally arriving with a whimper. As it turns out, it's a decent premise, but loses focus and goes on unnecessary tangents. It has assembled a great cast, but half of them are terribly miscast - most notably Rosario Dawson. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a talented guy, but he's trying a lttle too hard here. What on paper should have been a great film - Leonard, Madden, Lane, Levitt, Dawson... - ends up instead more on par with most direct-to-dvd fare. I'm curious to see if the DVD will have an extended cut including Johnny Knoxville's scenes, whose role was cut entirely.

Timberlake and Bridges' performances are good, but the story is slow and rather unteresting.

Denzel and director Tony Scott have done some amazing films together, but even they can't save this disaster. A movie with plotholes so big you can drive a subway train through them, and an ending that makes no sense at all. Travolta, as usual, is WAY too far over-the-top in his cheeseball acting, and this time he also manages to sport his silliest look since Battlefield Earth. Please, John - stop making movies. (Seriously, looking back over his filmography, the man has made about 3 good movies, and even those were good not because of him, but despite him)

A big disappointment considering Denzel and Tony's track record.

No one expected this to be a great film, but if any of you, like me, held out hope that it may at least succeed at just being silly popcorn fun, well... abandon all hope ye who enter here.

Where to start? The writing: HORRIBLE - The backstories and flashbacks are laughably bad. Lame jokes fall flat, but we have ample opportunity to laugh thanks to some unintentionally hilarious bad scenes. Then they thought they were being clever by shoving every catchphrase from the cartoon into the first half hour ("kung fu grip" "knowing is half the battle", "real american hero", etc)

The action: could be exciting and fun, but is ruined by the bad jokes and even worse CGI.

The direction: Sommers is a hack - pure and simple. The main makes people like Brett Ratner and McG look like Spielberg and Scorsese.

Then there's the worst offenders of all - the acting. It's cast with a plethora of C-list actors who don't fit the parts in the slightest. Channing Tatum may very well be the worst actor of the 21st century, and can't deliver a single line convincingly, and his non-verbal acting is even worse. Marlon Wayans is annoying and fails completely at adding humor to the film. Rachel Nichols is almost as bad an actor as Tatum, and might I add not nearly as attractive as they try to pass her off as. I am simply baffled as to why a few talented people like Dennis Quaid and Joseph Gordon-Levitt chose to participate in this mess. They are far too good for this film. Paychecks, I guess. Levitt, in particular, takes on a terrible role with a stupid look and an even more ludicrous voice.

Hey, I'm all for dumb fun, but this was just terrible, largely due to its cast. At least one good thing came of this film - Thanks to the nostaliga it drummed up, I made a ton of money putting my old toys up on eBay.

Add a review (optional)...

From the start of the film, you already know it's a strong contender for at least a few year-end awards: worst makeup and worst costumes. The age makeup throughout is horrible, but is nothing compared to the terrible (and pointless) Nixon, Castro, etc impersonators. And the costumes? Yikes. They look like some Comic-Con losers dressed up in something they had their mommies make for them. As the film progresses, we find they can add worst soundtrack to that list as well.

But what about the film? Well, the actors all try their hardest, and Zack Snyder is a good director with a real visual flare, but even they can't save this from its highly overrated source material. The film is pretentious, choppy, disjointed, and often just boring. Fanboys will undoubtedly tell me I just didn't "get" it. Well, I got it... I just thought it wasn't very good.

...Another one of those films where I'm just baffled by the praise...

It's really a pretty horrible film, the kind you roll your eyes at and make fun of with your friends as you watch it.

But I had to give it an extra star for the 3-D. It really creates an awesome depth to the picture and makes it all feel more real, though the stuff that tries too hard, the "comin' at ya" stuff, is never really effective and just comes across as silly.

I can't imagine how bad this film would be had I seen it in standard 2-D. The 3-D is the only thing making the film worthwhile.

It's hard to look at this film objectively. Maybe I'd enjoy it more if I didn't think the music was all complete crap. Maybe I'd enjoy it more if I didn't think the whole gangsta rap "thug" lifestyle was a joke. But as it is, the characters are caricatures and the soundtrack is full of music that makes you wonder why anyone liked this guy.

So why did I even watch it? Well, even if I don't know or care much about someone, biographies can still be interesting and entertaining. This is not one of them. A subject unworthy of a biography.

Who the f#@% are these guys? They wrote, directed, and cast themselves as the leads, yet they suck at all of the above.

I'm all for a good mindless comedy. I mean, ten years ago American Pie came along and basically brought back the sex comedy genre. But what I didn't realize then is just how good the writing, acting, and directing was (for the genre, that is). But after seeing a parade of sad wanna-be's stinking up the theaters, you fully appreciate what an achievement it was - balancing laughs with gross-outs with character with heart. MISS MARCH, on the other hand, is just a feeble "comedy" with a total of about 3 laughs. And yes, the blame is entirely on its two leads/writers/directors. Who the hell gave these two the money and opportunity to make a movie?

Oh my, did that suck.



Dennis Quaid is one of the most underused, underrated actors around, so when I see he has a new project coming, I'm always optimistic. This one obviously wanted to be Se7en, but instead it was just another sad knock-off, and one of the worst at that. Quaid does fine, but the story and script are just duds from page one.



But the absolute worst aspect of the film is Ziyi Zhang. It's safe to say she has a LOCK on worst actress of 2009 for her performance here. Yes, her English is still spotty, but even if you forgive that, her acting is still atrocious.



Dennis Quaid deserves better than this. Come to think of it, looking back on his career, he's ony had a handful of really good films and a lot of mediocrity and duds. This guy needs a new agent. I hope this year's Pandorum with Quaid and Ben Foster is better.

The Box is based on a short story by Richard Matheson, and it most definitely feels like it was supposed to be a short story. There's enough story here to maybe fill an episode of Twilight Zone or Tales From the Crypt (though not a very good one), but stretched thin to fill two hours, it is excrutiating. By the time we got to the last half hour or so, I didn't even care how it ended, just as long as it ended.

What story there is starts out slightly intriguing, but it takes some serious wrong turns and the unfolding explanation is head-shakingly awful. One last crime the film commits: being set in the 70's for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever. Adventureland did the same thing earlier this year. Setting the film in that era added NOTHING to this story aside from godawful fashion, hair, and home decor.

One of the worst films of the year, with the only redeeming quality being another strong performance by James Marsden.

Don't believe the hype! There is not one SINGLE scary moment in this entire film. It is 100 minutes of watching a couple hang out at home, with an occasional slamming door or knocking. So if that's all it takes to terrify you, then more power to ya, but otherwise this is just another case of manufactured (and wholly undeserved) hype. How anyone thought this was a) a good film or b) scary at all is completely beyond me.