Favourite Movie Scores

Proof that while I loathe Michael Bay with every atom of my being, I can still admit when he actually makes a good film. And a good film this is - fun action, terrific cinematography, and one of the best scores ever written. Still, I somehow feel like a traitor to admit all of this. I guess he just got lucky. Stupid Michael Bay.

My most favourite film. Perfect in every way, shape, and form. Beautiful, powerful, mesmerizing, haunting, exceptional, enjoyable, wonderful, intelligent, uplifting, moving - there aren't enough words in the English language to describe how amazing this film really is. From top to bottom, Frank Darabont, the writer/director, achieved success. The performances are wonderful - has Morgan Freeman ever done a better voice over narration? The cinematography is perfectly suited for the story. The camera work is terrific, but never distracting. The music by Thomas Newman is one of the very best of musical scores. And of course, Darabont himself - debuted with this film, deserved the Oscar he never got, and wrote probably the most literate, thought-provoking, and awe inspiring screenplay film has ever seen. I read an email where 50 priests, pastors, and other religious figures listed their favourite films, and 38 out of those 50 all said Shawshank. It's well deserved. If ever there was a film to change someone's life (as this movie as for me - I attribute 90% of my success with Alycia, my lovely girlfriend, to this movie), than this would be the flick. Perfect, perfect, perfect. Heck, now I wanna go watch it again for the 1000th time.

The best movie I've ever seen in theatres. Gorgeous, breath taking, wonderful, amazing, eye popping, mind boggling. To me, it was like listening to a great symphony orchestra - you can't nitpick the details (who ever says "they used B sharp twice in that one stanza"?), but you take it in as a cohesive, immersive whole. It spoke to me, it touched me. As well as my girlfiend - we were so stunned after seeing it (as was the whole audience, who said through almost the entire end credits without budging), that we went and saw it 2 more times. Hugely underrated, this is a true masterpiece and top 15 films I've ever seen.

Is there any movie out there more emotionally exhausting and painful to watch than Requeim for a Dream? Even Schindler's List gave us a smidgeon of hope. Requiem for a Dream gives us no hope, no respite, no escape. It's one of the most brilliant, harrowing, powerful, forceful, haunting, and exceptionally depressing films I've ever seen. To my lovely girlfriend who I finally forced to watch this movie and is now probably traumatized and disturbed for life - think how I felt, the first time I watched it, being a mere 14 years old. It rocked my world. I remember sitting in my basement one fine Sunday morning, ready for a morning movie, having taped this the night before off IFC because of a couple good reviews I read. And when it was over, I was literally shaking. Hell, this was one of the first R rated movies I had ever seen, and what a way to start. I sat through the whole end credits, my mouth still agape, hardly even blinking. In fact, now that I think about it, I believe this is the first film that truly opened my eyes to the power of film, and how a movie can be so much more than just a movie. Indeed, Requiem isn't just a movie - it's an experience, a lesson, a message to all addicts of anything to wake the hell up. I showed this to a close friend a couple weeks after my first experience with the film, the same time he was experimenting with drugs. When it was over, he said "I'm not even gonna take Advil anymore". And he didn't, for quite a while. When was the last time a movie could literally change your life? As great as Pi was, and as wonderful as The Fountain is, this film is Darren Aronofsky's finest achievement, and many years later I still believe it deserves a place in my top 10 movies of all time. The experience of watching it is simply like no other. It moves you to tears while making you shake in disturbance. The flick follows the lives of 4 people - three drug addicts by choice, the fourth by accident. I do not know which story is the most painful, the most resonant, the most heartbreaking. I think it would have to be Ellen Burstyn's portrayal of the elderly mom in the movie who gives the film it's most potent power. In one of the best performances I've ever seen, she gives us a character who's alone, unhappy, dealing with a drug addicted son, then recieves a glimmer of hope that she'll be on television. But before she reaches the cameras, she wants to lose weight to make her son proud, and after dieting fails, she moves on to diet pills. Now, I don't know if the television aspect is a hoax or not. But what's important is that her blind hope in something better happening in her life results in her becoming addicted to pills that are a lot worse than normal diet pills, and her life spirals out of control. In fact, every character in this movie from the very first shot is on a constant downhill spiral. That's what makes this movie so difficult to watch and rewatch - as brilliantly made as it is, it's the most depressing and despairing thing you'll ever see. Unlike Shawshank Redemption, which told us that hope is what keeps us alive, Requiem tells us that hope is indeed good, but we fuck up to much to ever achieve it through various addictions and obsessions. The key to the movie is that it's not just about drug addiction. It's about how something as powerful as drug addiction can replace our natural addictions to everything else in life, such as hope, dreams, love, sex, what have you. Every character in the movie is brilliantly portrayed in this fashion. You see early on that they can all escape their inevitable decline into Hell, but they refuse. They need their fix, more than anything else. And when Jennifer Connelly's character begins to prostitute herself for heroin, your gut will be churning. And when Burstyn's character becomes completely batshit crazy, you suddenly understand all those dressed up wacko's on buses and park benches, screaming out and flailing their arms around. As grim, bleak, and unsettling as the film is, it is completely valuable to everyone who not only wants to learn a damn important lesson about life and it's addictions, but also to anyone willing to see filmmaking at the highest order possible. Aronofsky is a brilliant director, showcased here more than ever. Is there any other film out there that more accurately and astutely presents the world seen through the eyes of a drug addict? Aronofsky uses rapid fire cuts, hazy lighting, fantastic camera angles, fast motion and slow motion, and a hundred other tricks to show us how these people see the world. It's effectivity is astounding, and disturbing. Like I said, the story is about a downhill spiral. But what makes it so haunting and unforgettable is that it's a downhill spiral to FOUR individuals, some of whom deserve their comuppance, others who don't. Drugs and the addictions to it destroy the lives of every character in this film, and your heart literally will break while watching it. Technically speaking, the film is a marvel. The music by Clint Mansell is some of the best ever composed. The cinematography is effective, the editing is fantastic, the performances are all splendid, and the screenplay is perfect in giving us everything we need with absolutely no fat. There's not too many long monolouge's in the film, because it wouldn't be appropriate to these people (although Burstyn does have one, in the middle of the film, about becoming old and lonely that will make even the coldest person get misty). And if you think the first two acts of the film are disturbing, you ain't seen nothing yet - the finale of the movie, where Aronofsky cuts back and forth between every character as they reach their horrible destinations, will rock your socks off. Requiem for a Dream, in short, is a masterpiece, one of the greatest films of all time. It's also one of the most difficult viewing experiences you'll ever endure. If you're brave enough, or if you have an asshole boyfriend who doesn't care if he ruins your day (sorry again leasha :P), then watch this movie and be just as astounded as the rest of the world.

I hadn't seen this film for about a year when I watched it again this weekend, but I was quickly reminded why it's one of my favourite films. Mel Gibson proved with this film that he's one of the master manipulator of emotions - and I mean that in a very sincere way. I admire it. Yes, his films are melodramatic and very operatic, and the drama is rarely subtle which usually results in few dry eyes. When a filmmaker can achieve this without cheating, it's quite grand. When the manipulation of emotions is done badly (Pearl Harbor and Patch Adams to name but two), the result is laughable. But Gibson isn't Shadyac or Bay. He respects the material and gives it weight. No, the film isn't the most historically accurate, but why should it be? He's not recreating history, he's recreating myth and legend, which allows for more creative freedom (like allowing people in the 13th century to say "ass" and "fuck" - something Ingmar Bergman would've frowned upon I'm sure). The movie has exhilirating action setpieces, two well done romances, a terrific score by James Horner, tragedy, drama, humour, beauty, power, and a wonderful finish that gives me goosebumps. It's one of the best epic films of all time, and deserving of all the accolades and popularity it has adorned. Great flick.

It's hard to explain in words exactly how, and why, I love Polar Express so much. It's not the kind of movie you'll find on many aspiring 20 year old male filmmakers top 20 of all time list. It's my favourite hardcore Christmas movie (because while technically It's a Wonderful Life is better, it also only has about 15 minutes to do with Christmas). It's my favourite animated film. It's one of the best movies period I've ever seen. A lot of people throughout my life have had trouble believing that, because admittedly, it does seem like an odd choice. But I can't lie about my feelings, and there isn't an atom of my being that doesn't want to hug Pol-Ex every time I watch it. Even just thinking about it, I get goosebumps and tingles all over, and there are several moments in the flick that still make me misty.

Again, it's difficult to describe. This is one of those movies that haunts you in a good way - it gets under your skin, in your mind, and just melts your cold little heart. I felt like the Grinch post-Christmas the first time I watched it...I could practically feel my heart growing three sizes that day. I remember only seeing it because I wanted to impress a girl I liked. I remember being alone in the theatre when it started. And I remember giggling and laughing like a little kid the whole damn way through. Easily the best theatre experience I've ever had (and I didn't even get to see it in 3D, like so many other lucky bastards did). All of my friends and family (except the girl of course, who I'm still dating now), didn't believe me. When the movie was released on DVD a year later, I finally convinced all of them to watch it with me, if only to shut me up. And they were all floored - I still remember their faces of disbelief when I told them it's actually an action/adventure film, and then how stunned and entertained they were when it turned out I was right (I think this is how it worked with audiences too - if memory serves, the movie opened at #5 at the box office and disappointed financially, but then the strangest thing happened; the movie stayed there. Week after week, it never left the top 5 at the B.O, and that's not something that happens, ever, considering it stayed there for about a month. Of course, after Christmas, it dropped out of the top 10 immediately - but the word of mouth was quite clearly a powerhouse).

The Polar Express is a masterful entertainment; powerful, moving, action packed, mysterious, incredibly Christmas-y, and a rollar coaster ride of fun. I'm stunned that so many people dislike the movie, considering I've yet to meet anyone personally who doesn't love it. Yes, the film is a little creepy - the characters, because of the motion capture CGI used, do seem a little ethereal and otherworldy, and there are a couple scenes (like the ones with the screaming puppets), that could be unsettling to really younger viewers. But that's what makes this movie so special. It doesn't regurgitate the usual blah Christmas cheer in every kid movie. It tells a dramatic, operatic story, filled with danger and creepiness, and when the train skids off the tracks, a kid almost falls off to her death. The very best children movies over the years have all realized how important this level of seriousness is, and Pol-Ex shines with it.

I watch it every Christmas, usually several times, and it never fails to give me a warm, tingly glow inside afterwards, where the Christmas spirit really sticks right into me. This is the kind of movie that the term "warm fuzzy feelings" was made for. Some dislike how it's all about Santa and presents and therefore, they think it must be about the cold commercialism of Christmas. Wrong. The film is about faith, and believing in things you can't see or touch or hear. In a way, can't this supplant to Christianity, or Judaism, or even Scientology? The flick is the perfect allegory of religious belief - indeed, even Santa Claus himself in the film admits that he is only a "symbol" of the true spirit of Christmas. But I'm probably scaring off people by talking theologically about a kid's movie (when was the last time a children's animated film made you think?). Pol-Ex, as I mentioned before, is an action/adventure film of startling excitement and energy. The first half is admittedly much better than the last half, where magical and suspenseful action scenes come one right after the other, where the Hero Boy must race on the skii's of a ghost on the top of the train, to the train zooming down steep angles without a brake, to racing along breaking ice to get to the other side of the lake before they drown. These scenes are expertly filmed and paced, and still manage to get my blood pumping.

The last half is dominated by the North Pole itself, where the elves have a New York accent and seem a little gruff and unpleasant, and where Santa himself is a less jolly, more business-like version of what we're used to. The special effects, by the way, still hold up to this day (yes, I know it's only 5 years old, but often special effects don't look good for very long - try watching the original Spider-Man today and you'll see what I mean). The motion capture gives everything a slightly unreal or "off" element to it, but even then, we accept this in the terms of the world and the story we're watching. And still, we can see a warmth and humanity to the character's expressions (especially Hero Boy's), that are usually lacking in CGI films. The main reason I think Zemekis chose this route, though, is because of the freedom it gives him with his camera. He zooms the camera everywhere, flying through walls and out across the sky, showing us angles and movements that would be completely impossible in live action (plus, can you imagine how chintzy this movie would look if the characters were real actors surrounded by greenscreen environments? It'd look like Attack of the Clones). There's a long take early in the film where Zemekis follows a golden ticket blown away by the wind, showing it's journey across the countryside until it magically arrives back in the train car it left, and the sequence is nothing short of amazing - and would've been impossible without the animation technology used.

Lets see, what else can I gush about. The screenplay, while essentially just a Go There-Come Back journey, is exciting, dense, and surprisingly literate, with some really great lines tossed in for good measure (my favourite being, "That's the thing about trains. Doesn't matter where they're going - what matters is deciding wether or not to get on"). The music, by Alan Silvestri, is some of the best of recent years, juggling haunting themes and a wonderful Christmas type theme that blasts you back in your seat whenever it's often played. I dunno, I guess technically speaking, the flick has some flaws. I might've liked to see Santa a little jollier. The Know It All Kid and pansy Billy kid kinda get on my nerves. The story starts treading it's wheels after a while, like I mentioned earlier - the stuff in the North Pole, for the most part, isn't as interesting as the journey there. But pish posh it all to hell, this flick is great. Damn rights, it's a bloody masterpiece, and anyone who doesn't realize this is a fool - or at least, to be more fair, a Scrooge.

Final note: avoid the 3D DVD at all costs. I was so super-pumped to finally be able to see it in 3D that buying the DVD was like an early, unexpected Christmas. But alas, it's the worst 3D presentation I've ever seen. Nothing pops, it's all incredibly dark and muddy, and worst of all, it's like you're watching the movie drunk, with everything having awful double vision. I couldn't even watch five minutes of it before returning the DVD to the store. A sad chapter in an otherwise lovely and wonderful experience.

Overrated, and definately not deserving of the Oscar, but I can't deny that the movie has exciting action scenes and a sort-of involving story line.

Ah, I love this flick. Haters be damned - this warms the cockles of my heart. Crowe gives the Oscar worthy performance he should've had in Gladiator, Connelly is as great and hot as always, and of course Ed Harris blows everyone out of the water. A magical drama that'll definately stand the test of time.

"like, OMG!!!! best movie EVEH!!!! johnny dep is SOOoooo hawt he's just gorgus and like the movie is like so freaking great!!! it's the best movie ever like seriusly, evryone NEEDS to see it!!! like ok ya so there's lots of swordfhgts and like ok lots of em are wit skeletons who can't die but SO FREAKIN WAHT PEOPLE!!! it's a pirate movie, it doesn't need a braiN! espesially when johnny dep is SO HAWT OMG like i just wanna spred him on a cracker and eat him up! but ya, best movie evah. some ppl say Shingshong Redemption or something like that but that's stupid, there's no swordfrights in it at all! BORRRRRING!"
And that was my presentation of 14 year old girls everywhere. Thank you.

While Halle Berry's ego almost sunk this film, I wound up enjoying it about as much as the previous two. It's shorter, dumber, and less serious than the others, but it can also boast the best action sequence of the trilogy, even though it was entirely pointless (why kill all those baddie mutants when you could wipe out the entire city from the power of one mutant? Oh, right, forgot about Magneto's 'move the pawns in chess' line. Like that explained much). Easy to make fun of, but still a fun enough ride.

One of my most favourite action flicks. Best film of '05, and without a doubt the best superhero movie ever made. Great fun from start to finish, it just keeps getting better everytime i watch it. Great costumes, lighting, editing, writing, music - plus, lets be honest...no matter how hetero I am, I would totally do Batman. Not Christian Bale, mind you - BATMAN.

Not to be confused with Gus Van Sant's masturbatory remake. This is Hitchcock's second greatest film - surely his most popular and iconic, and probably the greatest thriller ever made. Yes, the shower scene, in the appropriate setting with chuckling friends and popcorn, can be laughably dated. But watch it with the lights off and no one in the house with the sound cranked, and trust me, it'll still get you.

As much as everyone believes, this is not a "gay" movie. It's a beautiful and haunting and tragically sad story about two people in love - isn't that more important than what kind of genitals they have? Yes, the gay aspect gives is a dangerous resonance that wouldn't exist without it, and if the characters weren't gay, then the moving and poignant last act wouldn't have occured. Still, this movie should be seen by everyone, pro-gay or anti-gay, who want to see a great story told brilliantly.

No matter how great and nearly perfect this film is, it's almost impossible to say you "enjoy" it. Up there with Requeim for a Dream for being the most disturbing and saddest film ever made, this is definately Spielberg's finest achievement and not one that's ever completely forgotten. Great flick.

Wasn't as bad as it could've been, wasn't as good as it should've been. Farrell was a casting mistake - for such a famous conquerer, he was mighty bland. Hell, even Jared Leto would've given more life to him. All in all - not Stone's finest hour.

Please excuse what is possibly the crudest comparison I've ever used for a film review, but watching The Dark Knight is a lot like having the best sex of your life. Its exhausting, its rigorous, its intense, its sometimes painful, its mostly wonderful, and its completely explosive. And, at the end, it?s totally worth it. The Dark Knight, while maybe not the uber-perfect greatest film of all time people are telling you it is, is indeed the best film I've seen since The Fountain two years ago, and is probably the best comic book movie ever made. Its dark and twisted, yes, but also damn near perfect, and probably slightly better than the already amazing Batman Begins. Its pretty much everything I had hoped for.

Still, there is a twinge of sadness now that its all said and done. The excitement is over. The anticipation is gone. Sure, it'll be great to watch and rewatch this masterpiece and count up all the box office moolah its making, but nothing will ever be more fun than the months and years spent of intense anticipation, scouring the internet to find even just a picture from the movie, paying 10 dollars for a crappy movie just to see the trailer for Dark Knight before it. I've never anticipated a film more in my life - no, not even Episode 1 The Phantom Menace, and I even dressed up as Han Solo for that one. The Dark Knight, however, is one of the rare times where the experience is actually what you expect and hope for. There's few disappointments to be found here. Is the movie being a little overrated? Possibly - with all the huge acclaim for the picture, and it being ranked #1 on the imdb?s top 250 films of all time list, you half expect Jesus Christ to appear in the film. But for what it is, this is the best 10 bucks you're likely to spend in a theatre this year, and as I said before, its been so long since I've given any film a perfect rating that I actually got chills rating it as such.

The flick this one resembles most is not a previous Batman film or any comic book movie; its Michael Mann's Heat, a three hour long epic crime drama. Placing The Dark Knight in the same category as that flick is something many people are doing, and they're justified. This isn't Batman's movie; in fact, this isn't Joker's movie, either. This is Gotham City's movie. We spend time with almost every character in the flick - Batman gets about as much screentime as Bruce Wayne, who gets about as much as Joker, who gets about as much as Harvey Dent, etc. Even the supporting characters like Rachel Dawes and Lt. Gordon are given the appropriate amount of time on screen to warrant our sympathy and interest. This is probably the first ever superhero ensemble piece, and it works marvelously. There's even a cameo in the beginning of the film from a character in Batman Begins that resulted in a big wide grin on my face - some have called it confusing, but I found it to be wonderful.

The characters themselves drive the plot of this film, which is not a common occurance (and wasn't even the case with Batman Begins). The Joker is treated like the shark in Jaws (and has a bit of Jigsaw in there too) - no one can explain or understand his desire for chaos and mayhem, but he just keeps coming and coming, and what everyone else does is a catalyst to his violent actions. Batman is taken to Hong Kong in a spectacular scene, but otherwise stays in Gotham, being even more badass than usual (at one point, he breaks the feet of a gangster in order to extract information). We care about the characters, because the wonderfully written script by Nolan and his brother Jonathan takes time for us to get inside these characters thoughts and feelings. My little cousin cried repeatedly in this flick, and if you find that unlikely in a superhero action blockbuster, then you haven't seen Dark Knight yet. There are tragedies that occur in this movie that had me shaken and my mouth agape, and many of these were very unexpected. The character of Dent/Two-Face is one of the most interesting because of his underlying tragedy, which is why the ending of the film left me momentarily bitter (but I'll talk about that later, in a spoiler-warned paragraph).

The plot is dense, and often times hard to follow, but that's something I savoured. Bruce Wayne/Batman is given a bit of short-thrift in this flick - in order to make it a massive ensemble work, I guess sacrifices had to be made. We never see any more flashbacks to his parent's death, and that theme of past guilt and overcoming fear is completely forgotten about. Instead, new themes are utilized. The idea of the villains only existing to one-up Batman is discussed, as is the exploration of the duplicity of a vigilante, with every character seemingly trying to make Batman break his moral code. The idea that the supervillians will always win because they have no rules to follow is something often mentioned in the comics but never before in the movies - here, it is attacked viciously, with Batman often nearly reaching his breaking point. This not only adds drama, but also tension and suspense, as we keep waiting to see Batman become what he seems destined to be. The symbiotic relationship between Batman and Joker is also explored, and talked about in great depth in the last scene and also the best scene of the film, when Joker has been caught and Batman interrogates him. Joker tells him that he doesn't want Batman to die, because they both need each other, and at one point even exclaims "You complete me". If you think that's cheesy sounding, its suitably haunting and powerful in the flick itself. And Batman himself seems unable to do away with him, because then Joker would win - we've all seen the shot in the trailer of the Bat-Pod barely missing Joker in the street, but what you might not realize is that in the movie, this is the telling point of Batman and Joker's whole relationship, and in fact the entire film hinges on that one shot.

No review can be complete without gushing of Heath Ledger's performance. Far be it for me to change the trend. He's shocking in this movie - darkly funny, brutal, violent, chaotic, frightening, intense, hypnotic. You can't look away from the screen when he's around - it's one of the best performances of the decade, and surely deserving of its definite Oscar nomination. Christian Bale is strong again as Batman/Bruce Wayne, although because the character's past is no longer explored, he has less chances of showcasing his real abilities. Aaron Eckhart was also very strong as Two Face - the tragedy of his character is something fans of Batman Forever might not be aware of, but if you've seen Batman The Animated Series, you know how tough it would be to be Two Face. In short, the performances all around are strong, except for Maggie Gyllenhall. She was miscast from the start - all that was needed, really, was a cute face and a great set of tits to replace Katie Holmes (who I actually thought did fine in Begins), but Maggie is really funny looking, downright ugly in fact, and her performance grates. The screenplay is one of the best of modern films. The dialogue is surprisingly eloquent, thoughtful. This isn't your typical superhero flick where everyone just screams out inanities - these characters have desires, dreams, and fears etched in all of their passages. The suspense often reaches ultimate levels because for once, we don't know who will be alive at the end of the movie. No one is really safe, and that aids the film immensely. In terms of the film's technical prowess, its truly champs. The musical score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard is terrific and powerful, the cinematography is sharp and intense in scope (especially in IMAX theatres, which were sadly sold out when I was in the city), the editing is not as choppy as Batman Begins, and the CGI work is never noticeable or calls attention to itself.

Now. Onto the films flaws - for yes, as great as it is, it does have its problems. Maggie's inclusion is one. The new batsuit is another. It may be more comfortable for Bale, now, but the suit in Begins was perfect, and this one feels more sci-fi than darkly realistic. The second act feels a little choppy at times, maybe even a little rushed. And what?s maybe the most surprising flaw of all, there's very little action in the film, especially of the Batman-style variety. Oh, its an exciting movie, don't get me wrong. But the screentime for the action sequences are all surprisingly brief. The bat-pod chase, which I felt would be a huge highlight, was over almost immediately after starting (and nowhere near as good as the Batmobile chase in the previous film). And the final fight between Batman and the Joker probably only lasted about 30 seconds. Indeed, Batman himself is probably only in about 7 or 8 scenes, although I'd have to rewatch the film to be certain. However, its a testament to the success of the film that these big of flaws didn't bother me enough to dock it star marks. But there was one big disappointment in the end. I was going to go into big detail about how frustrating it was and how it blemished an otherwise superb motion picture, but I've read rumours and supposed "facts" online since seeing the film that disprove what I thought was real. However, I will still say
HUGE SPOILERS STARTING
and continue with what I was going to say. The ends of the major villains are slightly disappointing. You can tell they really were planning on having Heath return as the Joker for the next film, because his end is ambigious, and he's really just left hanging there. Personally, I would've preferred to see him fall to his death then forever be hanging there, taunting Batman, and now never to return to the big screen (for no actor will try and replace Ledger). Two Face's end, though, was much more dissatisfying. He supposedly dies in the end and I was annoyed - he was only in the film as Two Face for a handful of scenes, and he's one of the most interesting characters in the Batman cannon. I was shocked when he died - surely when they realized half a year before the film's release that the main villain died in real life, they would go back and reshoot the ending so they're other villain would actually be able to return? But, I read online that Eckhart has signed on for another Bat-flick, and because the film is inspired by the Long Halloween comic (where Two Face suffers a large fall and survives, with only the Harvey Dent part of him dead forever), I know believe Two Face does indeed survive and will be around for the next film. Which, to be honest, makes the film's ultimate flaw not a flaw at all, really, so I'm very happy.

SPOILERS ENDING
Anyways, I should wrap this up, I've already written two full pages about this movie. But its hard not to gush, and to not use hyperbole. The Dark Knight is a wonderful masterpiece; violent, exciting, intense, and brutally rewarding to all of us who dreamed of watching it every night for the past three years. Its not only a superhero film, but a massive crime drama, an epic Greek tragedy, and a really kickass, badass, awesomeass movie. There are dozens of standout sequences - the finale in the building, the semi-truck chase, the thrilling race to save a life or two, and every scene starring the Joker. The final moments contain a personal sacrifice greater than that of any other superhero, and I found myself actually, deeply moved. Yes, this is a violent film, and not appropriate for younger viewers. Not just because they'll be scared, but because they'll be disturbed by the violence posed in the moral and ethical questions Joker forces on the citizens of Gotham. But for those of us who can take it, this is one of the best moviegoing experiences of modern times. The action isn't as good as Batman Begins, but the story is even better, and this makes for one helluva fun ride.

This is the kind of movie where a guy doesn't even just use the gun as a weapon - he pops out the clip, kicks it in mid-air, and have it hit a railroad track to electrocute the bad buy. Actually, that did happen in this movie. It's silly fun. I have trouble admitting I enjoyed such a stupid movie, but I guess that makes it a guilty pleasure. Watch it with little expectations, like me, and you might find it to be that too.

The Transformers phenomenon was a bit before my time, so nostalgic feelings or emotional connections to these big metallic Buzz Lightyear's don't really apply to me. I do remember my Transformers toy when I was a kid, though. He was a green and purple minivan that transformed into a robot with sunglasses (I guess it's pretty clear why he's not in the movie :P). But even as a kid, I didn't much like him. He was just a van that had arms and a face. I honestly rather played with normal looking guys in business suits where I'd plan out these elaborate schemes and nefarious plots than a robotic Californian SUV. So Transformers do nothing for me. Michael Bay, who directed this flick, REALLY does nothing for me. I hate him. Despise him. Everything he does and represents as a filmmaker (and human being, for that matter), make me sick. He's arrogant, he's cocky, he's an idiot, he's an asshole to everyone on and off set, he's a lousy and hamhanded filmmaker. But....but....sigh....as much as I wish I could say he blew it again, he didn't. Transformers is an Ok movie. Not great. But Ok. For all the action sequences where huge robots duke it out and smash into buildings and fly around in the air - which admittedly is pretty fun stuff to watch - there's another sequence that falls completely flat or makes no sense. Take, for example, the subplot involving Anthony Anderson and the hot Aussie chick. What happens with it? Where does it go? These characters are completely useless. The filmmakers thought adding them would instill some colour in the subplot, but it just adds another 20 useless minutes to an already long film. Considering that nothing happens with their plot or their characters (and considering that eventually, they completely disappear from the movie and are never mentioned again; much like several other characters like John Turturro's, Jon Voight's, and the rugged soldier), they were put in for two reasons - comedy reilief, and the hot Aussie. I know no one cares about them. Why should we? We paid money to see robots kicking ass. But it represents the kind of sloppy filmmaking Bay does all the time, and often gets away with. Now, continuing with the bad stuff, before I can hang my head low and talk about the good things in the film. For a movie like this to work with people who don't automatically love Transformers, we need something else to emotionally grab hold of. This, therefore, should be the characters, but it just doesn't happen. Some of them, like the aforementioned hot Aussie, are pointless to the story and just serve as timewasters. But even the main characters are drab. True, Megan Fox is about as hot as women can get these days - but her character is annoying, banal, and completely durogatory. Shia LeBeouf fares better, both because he was able to adlib his dialogue (which would explain why he's the only person in the film who doesn't talk like a robot - no pun intended), and because I'm a big fan of his, so I could more easily relate myself to him. So the characters suck. The plot is silly. And even though the robots themselves are impressive, I HATED the way they talked. When they were these lumbering, scary machines, I was impressed. Then they had to open their mouths. "I am [insert cool sounding name]. My job is to [insert cool sounding occupation]. My powers are [insert cool powers]." This process was usually followed by a silly quip and then repeated for all the other robots around. See, I hated this shit. Here we're given some of the coolest looking machinery in a movie ever, and they talk like the Power Rangers (such as the first thing the bad guy says when he's reborn - "I - AM - MEGATRONNNNN!"). It's silly, it's juvenille, and it would've worked if the rest of the movie was as silly and as juvenille - but for a flick playing it mostly straight, they're dialogue was absurd to the point of complete distraction. I know, I know - Transformers fans would've been super pissed if the robots didn't talk. In fact, much of their dialogue is lifted from the 1980's cartoon (which explains a lot of the cheesiness). But for this particular picture, I didn't think it worked at all. Anyways....shit. On to the good stuff. The action. It's fun. Say what we will about Bay being the biggest douchebag alive - no one can say he can't film a kinetic action scene. This doesn't always work, mind you, but in this film, he seems pretty clear on how to film action in the most exciting way (even though these were essentially just big cartoons, so the excitement level I had was the same as watching a kickass cartoon). True, after a while, the action got a little redundant. I mean, how long do soldiers have to fire untold rounds of ammo at a robot before they realize it's not even making a dent? And how many times do we have to see retarded character exposition during the most amazing robotic battles? Who honestly would give a rats fuck about Megan Fox's dad stealing cars several years ago when there's a dozen bigass Transformers running around shooting each other? Dammit, I was supposed to stay on the good things, right right. Ok. Action is fun. Special effects are terrific. Music is standard Media Ventures, but excellent and damn enjoyable. Almost all the girls are hot beyond all measure, John Turturro was deliciously good, and the final confrontations between the robots, while sloppy (I can't remember any of the exact robots dying, really), and silly (the final battle between Megatron and Optimus Prime isn't handled too well), is still pretty eye popping. But it could've been so much more. Bay could've given us a story and characters to care about, instead of just watching really badass robots stomping around. Dramatically speaking, there's nothing to connect to here for us Transformers virgins. True, when the patriotic music swells and the hero does something massively heroic in front of the hot girl he loves, the 10 year old boy in me gets the chills. But I got chills from Sharkboy and Lavagirl too, and I'm sorry, but this movie should've been better than that one :P. Overall, though, it's not that bad. If someone like Spielberg had directed instead of just produced, we would've gotten a better movie, with less emphasis on cool but repetitive action sequences and more interest put into a good story and realistic characters. But Bay does as good a job as he can do, I guess. Transformers is not the modern masterpiece people are telling you it is, and it's certainly no where near the level of greatness other action flicks, like Batman Begins, Face/Off, Indiana Jones, and even 300 are. But it tries. It won't bore you. And for hours after it's done playing, every step you take will be scored to instense dramatic music in your head.
P.S - am I the only one who, after seeing this movie, thinks that Herbie the Love Bug has actually been a Transformer in disguise this whole time?

It wasn't the best film of the year (that honour would definately reside with The Fountain, and Children of Men would follow), but The Departed definately deserved it's Oscar wins. People said this is Scorsese's return to form, to which I say - where'd he go that warranted a return? His last GREAT film was Casino, and that was only 10 years ago. Hell, The Aviator from a couple years ago was also excellent. At any rate, this is Marty's 5th best flick. Exciting, intense, wickedly funny, graphically violent - everything a great Scorsese film should be. It has perfect music, fantastically choppy editing, a performance from Nicholson that is in my top 10 fav performances of all time, and of course, there's Marty's directing, that once again proves there comes a time in a filmmaker's life where he's so good, he can break whatever rules he wants. I love him, and I love this film.

Spielberg's most underrated film is actually my second favourite of all his works. It's got everything - mystery, science fiction, suspense, drama, and superb action. Special effects and music are terrific too. It all boils down to a movie where time travel actually is done realistically and few plot holes abound. Plus, it's got a great Tom Cruise performance. Yes, those exist.

There's a reason Tim Burton pisses me off so much, but I've never really been able to quite figure out what it is. I've always found him overrated, his movies ranging from mediocre to terrible (with the very rare masterpiece like Big Fish). But I've never been able to quite put my finger on why, especially since he has so many freakin' fans. I think I got it, though, while watching Batman Returns tonight from beginning to end for the first time in my entire life. Here's what it is - he never adapts himself to any movie he works on. Never. Instead - and here is where I get angry - he will always adapt the MOVIE to HIMSELF. Every time. There's never been a film (excepting, perhaps, the wonderful Big Fish), where he just let the story tell itself and made it the way it was supposed to be. He always puts himself first; if any scene goes by that doesn't sceam out "TIM BURTON DIRECTED THIS!!!!" then it's not worth putting in.

What bugs me about this so much, as a filmmaker and a film lover, is that it's just so opposite of my own beliefs. Yes, a director should have his own personal style. I've never seen a Martin Scorsese film, for instance, and not be able to tell almost instantly that Marty directed it. But Marty picks stories and scripts that specifically work in that style and in those conditions, and if it doesn't, he will change or manipulate his own work to better suit the story. Timmy boy doesn't do that. Not only will he not change his style in order to better suit the story, he always seems to have this infuriating knack for picking stories he SHOULDN'T make, then forcing the Tim Burton vision on them. He shouldn't have made Planet of the Apes, he shouldn't have made the first Batman, he shouldn't have gone anywhere near Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.....hell, call this sacrilidge if you want, but I think just about any director also could've done a better job on Edward Scissorhands. And this is when we come back to his Batman Returns. I liked the first Batman, primarily because Tim Burton was not really Tim Burton yet, so he let the script (mostly) speak for itself. It was obvious he didn't give a shit about action, but it didn't matter much. But for the sequel, the studio essentially let him make a Tim Burton movie with a couple Batman characters thrown in. Biiiiig mistake.

So what do we get? We get a traumatizing film, endlessly creepy, unpleasant to look at and watch, and never a remote bit of fun. I felt unclean watching the flick, and I'm 20 - I can suddenly understand why my parents never let me see this film (others were not as lucky, I'm afraid, and the movie has been known to send little kiddies crying in fear). How is this right for Batman? How is this an appropriate style? Sure, it looks nifty, but gosh, I always thought comic book movies should be FUN. Even The Dark Knight, which by many accounts is more violent and even grimmer than this movie, is endlessly more entertaining. Batman Returns is gloomy, depressing, cold, and brutal, and I blame every second of this on Tim fucking Burton. Instead of making a Batman film fans and kids and anyone could enjoy, he instead made a Batman film HE could enjoy. Instead of changing his ways to better suit the character, he changed the character to better suit him. Say all you want about Burton's vision and creativity - I personally think he's the laziest filmmaker working today.

I guess he's not helped by the script. This is a pretty shitty story, involving all sorts of corruption with beaucracy and sewage carney's and tons of other nonsense. The action scenes are mundane and uneventful, and Burton again shows his lack of skill at such sequences. The acting is Ok, I guess, although nothing compares to Jack Nicholson's work in the first Batman flick. And the characters are all shortchanged or brutalized from what they should be in order to better suit Burton's "vision". The Penguin should never have been a gargling, snorting, bleeding mess of a freak from the sewars - instead, he's always been a cold, calculated, intelligent gangster. Here, he's like what I expect Joe Pesci to look and act like 10 days after his death. Catwoman's an endlessly boring character, both in the comics and the movie, and I don't care what anyone says - Michelle Pfieffer, even at the time, was just not very attractive. There are some highlights, I suppose, which gives me the 2 star rating; a brilliant Danny Elfman score, some great set design, and at least the flick's never boring.

So why am I ripping on a movie almost two decades old? Cause Tim Burton pisses me off, basically. After finally watching the whole movie, I can clearly state that Burton was the wrong man for the Batman job since day one, especially when he started mixing his gothic fantasy with unbearable campiness (some of the lines in this movie are so cheesy it made me wince). And ultimately, Batman shouldn't BE a gothic fantasy, nor a campy mess (this movie's both). Christopher Nolan finally got it right, but I still can't forgive Burton. He's made some allright films...in fact, I can only think of a handful I actively disliked. But he's just so fucking overrated. I don't care if he puts out creepy and inticing visuals - it only matters IF THE MOVIE NEEDED IT. And, in this case and many others, it didn't.

Final note - you know you're in trouble when your main character, a superhero in a superhero film no less, doesn't say a single word of dialogue until the 30 minute mark. In fact, I think Batman only had one scene during the whole first quarter of the movie. Goes to show just how much Burton cared, eh? What a douche.

Finally, after seeing numerous so-called Oscar contenders fall flat on their faces upon release, here comes a film that met all of my expectations. Assassination of Jesse James is a wonderful masterpiece, true and classic; The Godfather or modern westerns. It's been so long since I've given 4.5 stars to a film (I think the last time was Bridge to Terabithia in, like, February), that I almost forgot how to gush on this site about a truely great film. Ironically, the critics and public were very unmoved - a moderate 74% on rottentomatoes and a pathetic box office return makes for a film that's disappearing quickly. It's a shame, because those who don't get the chance to see this film in theatres are missing out on a mesmerizing, hypnotic, glorious experience. The first thing everyone says about the movie is how amazing the cinematography is. Far be it for me to change the tradition. Roger Deakins' work in this film is the best I've seen since Children of Men, or maybe even The Fountain. The collaboration between him and the director for making this flick as much a lyrical painting, a beautifully violent poem of a film, as an actual Western adventure, is truly applaudable. Some shots and scenes were so beautiful, so perfectuly capturing the Winter/Spring time of prairie Canada (I know it's set in the States, but it was shot around where I live), that I just became enveloped and wallowed in the scenery. But the cinematography is hardly the only thing here that deserves praise. From top to bottom, this is a great flick. The dialogue consistently rang true. I've never heard people talk this way, but then, I wasn't raised in the late 1800's. I believed everything that was said and almost everything that was done. Character actions and motivations were rarely, if ever, contrived. The violence was brutal, sudden, unexpected, and gruesome. Possibly the best scene in the film was early on, when Jesse James and his gang stage their final train robbery. The way the scene is shot, with the lights of the train shattering through the night, casting the shadows of Jesse and his gang while the wonderful music by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis probes along - it was a masterful scene, and one of the best of the year. But the flick is littered with them. One critic complained that this may be the first time we've been forced to watch a story on film - what the hell is wrong with that? I loved how the movie gave us time to watch and genuflect not only on the main characters, but many of the supporting characters too, where the film reminded me once again of The Godfather's willingness to show us all the people populating this world, even if they won't stay around for long. It's not often films allow us the time and patience to do this, and maybe this is why the flick tanked - 160 minutes with little action, what on earth were the filmmakers thinking? Well, guess what - The Godfather was the same damn way, and you don't hear anyone complaining about that film's glaciel structure and length. The performances were great. Brad Pitt does a terrific job of being both menacing and intriguing. Casey Affleck was perfect of showing not only a homoerotic attraction to James, but something much more - his idol worship is so exuding and overwhelming that James is put off by it, and even asks him "Do you want to be with me, or do you want to be me?" Later on, maybe because James doesn't want Robert Ford to grow up like him, or maybe just because he was creeped out by him, James clearly rejects his adoration and pokes fun at Ford. In it's own strange way, this was the beginning of the end for Jesse James. Ford does eventually assassinate James, like the title says, but the scene itself is so pitch perfect and is worth the expectations. It's clear that James knows what is about to happen, and lets it. Did he want to die, exactly? We're not sure, and that's one of the best things about this movie - the characters are allowed to keep their ambiguouty, their mystery. There are no scenes forcing pat explanations of why the characters do what they do, think what they think. We're allowed windows into their world, yes, but overall, these people are given their privacy from us, and for that I was grateful. No, I suppose the film isn't perfect. It does drag a little, some subpots such as the one involving two gang members and one of their mother's, is a little disjointed and confusing. But overall, taken as a single tapestry of art, this is a great motherfucking flick. It moved me, haunted me, and made me forget all my troubles and problems for almost 3 hours. I can't gaurentee you will enjoy it, but if you're one of those few out there who still can appreciate films that truly, deeply, and audaciously want and deserve to be called "films", then this is the flick for you.

My second favourite flick of all time. Alongside Raging Bull and above all, Shawshank Redemption, these movies are as perfect and wonderful as film can be. It's Hitchcock's best film; yes, no scene is as iconic or important to film history as Psycho's shower scene, but it's a more mature, focused, and personal film all around. Hitchcock wore it all on his sleeve for this picture - the obsessive, controlling love for a blonde, the unattainable dream that is more important in chasing than achieving, the hypnotic desire for murder and murderous notions...all these themes and more are addressed in the film, and all of them describe Hitch better than any autobiography has. The movie isn't just his normal suspense/thriller, although there are moments that are creepier than anything else he's done, excepting Psycho of course (like the nun's voice in the end, coupled with the scream - gives me terrifying goosebumps just thinking about it). It's also a romance/drama, with intensity not expected of Jimmy Stewart (the controlling madness he exudes in the last act is frightening). There are some scenes that stick with you and never let you go - the suicide, the nightmare, the Scene D' Amour, the climax. It's a haunting, mesmerizing, evocative, disturbing flick, no question. But it's also dramatically powerful, which isn't something I say often about movies before 1960ish. Oh, I almost forgot to mention Bernard Herrmann's wonderful score, that enhances every scene it plays under. Great, great, great film. A true masterpiece.

Its sad that a high quality, well-intentioned drama can wind up being just as terrible as a shitty Roland Emmerich special effects extravaganza. But that's the power of needing - no, DEMANDING - a good screenplay, or at least a half-decent one. Life Before Her Eyes is a horrible, embarrassing screenplay, made only more frustrating by the fact that every other level of production is just fantastic. The acting is top notch, the direction is superb, the cinematography and music are some of the year's best. Too bad its all in the service of a shaggy dog story, where Nothing Is As It Seems, and no one gives a shit.

This is an incredibly disjointed, fragmented, dull, tepid, useless piece of crud. I'm angry that I've wasted two hours watching it. I feel ripped off. How could so many elements work so well, and yet no one put any thought or energy into the screenplay? I'm stunned anyone can watch this movie and not feel infuriated with its cheap shots and manipulative drama. Yes, its true that every dramatic film manipulates. Vadim Perelman's last movie, House of Sand and Fog, was manipulative to the very core. But I gave that one 4 stars, because it was so well-written that when bad things happened to good people, we never saw it as a filmmaker moving around chess pieces on a board to be played with. Here, so many Big Dramatic Events happen, with so little connection to each other and so few consequences, that after a while I just gave up. A teenager bleeds from her vagina, but this is forgotten about minutes later. A woman is almost hit by a truck and is rushed to the hospital, but nothing comes from this. By the time her child became lost in the woods for no apparent reason, I just threw up my arms and said "Fuck off". If you're going to ask us to invest in characters, at least make what happens to them remotely plausible.

Indeed, we never wind up caring for any of the characters, no matter what happens to them, because we know its all a construct of the screenplay, not real people doing real things. In fact, after watching the lamest twist ending I've seen in years, I have to say that the movie's whole purpose and point seems to be "Bad things happen to you and there aren't any consequences". I had déjà vu in this movie, because it reminded me so much of the scripts me and my friend used to write in high school, where we would throw every dramatic event we could think of at the screen in the hopes of moving people to tears. The purpose of the film, many critics argue, is to explore the "survivor guilt" that occurs after an awful incident, like the school shooting this film is about. But the ending destroys that. I don't want to reveal the twist (because if you hear it, you won't want to watch the movie...actually, maybe that would be a good thing), but ultimately, it makes everything that came before it a lie and a cheat, and any good intentions the flick might've had are thrown out the window.

As I mentioned before, this is a very well-made bad movie. The director, Perelman, knows how to create a great shot, that's for sure. And James Horner composes one of his most beautiful scores in years. I don't much care for Uma Thurman, but she does a good job; likewise, I've always been fond of Evan Rachel Wood, and she handles herself well here even though she's never given a worthy line throughout to say (although it is great to see her in a red bikini for about 10 scenes). But oh, that screenplay. What a dodgy and lethargic thing it is! Usual Suspects also had a twist ending that made us question everything that came before, but because it wasn't outwardly telegraphed we didn't see it coming, and because the rest of the movie was so entertaining, we didn't care about having the rug pulled out from under us. But that's not the case here. Even with a great ending, the rest of the movie is a waste of time. It keeps flipping back and forth from present to past (or present to future), with nothing of interest happening in either timeline. All of the character's relationships with themselves and each other are tepid and clichéd. The dialogue is brutally painful at times, and you can almost see the writers writing out a line like "The heart is the strongest muscle in the human body" and nod sagely to themselves, dreaming out their Oscar speech. Even the moments of complex guilt a character feels are out of date - we've all seen movies where characters experience a tragedy and keep thinking they see someone dead from that tragedy in real life, only to find out its just another stranger.

Life Before Her Eyes is a dull, plodding, rip-off of a movie. Its annoying how much wasted potential there is here. Because the movie keeps flashing away from the Big Dramatic Event (the shooting itself), we know its not going to end How We Expect. And because we know this, we?re always waiting for the other shoe to drop, and nothing can surprise us. And since we're shown the beginning of the shooting in, oh, the first scene of the movie, we wind up waiting the whole movie to see the resolution, which makes it increasingly frustrating to see a couple more seconds of it before being whisked away to another flashback or flashforward instead of seeing what happens. But when we do see what happens (which was predictable after the first 10 minutes), we wish we hadn't. The only real tragedy I felt during this film was the waste of my time, and the waste of the filmmaker's talents.

Everyone's got those particular elements of movies that just tickle them pink. You know - you see a movie then something happens and you're like "Yes, I love it when they do that". I know my girlfriend feels that way anytime stars are used in movies, or ponies :P For me, something I love is when two antagonists - hero/villian, villian/villian, or even hero/hero - meet and put their fight aside for only the briefest of moments, in order to share a civilized conversation. Pacino and De Niro did it in Heat, Foxx and Cruise did it the whole movie of Collateral. It happens here too, in what is one of my most favourite, and definately one of the most underrated, films. People don't like it because 1) it takes it's time developing it's characters (imagine that), and 2) it's characters are assholes. No one is painted nicely here - every character, main and supporting, are flawed individuals that do terrible things. That's what the whole movie's about - normal, average, every day people being pushed to their breaking points. In fact, watching it again, I was reminded of Lord of the Flies, in that the most ordinary and even "good" of people can do terrible things when shit on by life. Luckily the movie ends on an optimistic note, or this movie would cause suicides. But it's a brilliant, brilliant film. I've loved it ever since I first saw it, and seen it probably over a dozen times. It's the small details that make it so special - a girl swallowing her spit after her speech, a lip quivering when one's crying, the bartender putting a slice of lemon on an alcoholic's glass. It's perfectly written, perfectly performed, and wonderfully directed. Great film.

If the only reason a horror movie exists is to scare the viewer, then I don't think Exorcist: The Beginning succeeded with me. But if the goal of any movie is to keep me constantly engaged in the material until the end credits roll, then this flick actually did do rather well. I've talked a lot lately about bad movies that know they're bad, so they become good. This is a film that everyone says is bad, but it actually isn't. In fact, I quite enjoyed this flawed little film. Yes, I think it's rather despicable what the studio did to Paul Schrader, which resulted in his film being remade by another director almost 99% and becoming this movie. But now we have two different versions of the same basic film, which interests the film buff in me to no end. But I'm getting side-tracked. This flick isn't very scary. I jumped a couple times, but nothing ever made me yell out "HOLY SHIT!" or have trouble walking into a darkened hallway. While the horror elements were effective, yeah, they weren't especially frightening, and certainly not as disturbing as Linda Blair's possession in the first film. However - I found myself far more engaged in the story than I expected. Call it a guilty pleasure if you want, but I found myself intrigued by the religious aspects (the church was built where Satan fell from Heaven - that's really clever, come on!), the storyline was confused and jumbled but held my interest, and the characters, while mostly being stock ones with little personality, at least had my believeablity (and when Merrin regains his faith in the end, I actually felt something for him). That's not to say the film is perfect - far from it. The final plot "twist" makes absolutely no sense, and is dumb as it is weak (at least it gives us a Satanic possession; it can't be an Exorcist movie without it). A good portion of the film is indistinguishable and forgettable. And the characters, as I mentioned before, are rather weak. But having said all that - I was intrigued, I was entertained, and for me (but apparently not critics and audiences, who ripped the film apart rather unfairly I think), that's enough for a slight recommendation.

If only they hadn't fallen back in love. That's what I was thinking after this movie was done. When the two unhappily married couple were at (literal) war with each other, the movie was smart, fun, and edgy. Then they teamed up, and it became Mission: Impossible meets Trading Spouses.

Hitchcock. Clozout. Murnau. Kubrick. Spielberg. Scott. Cameron. Friedken. Demme. Fincher. These and dozens of other filmmakers have been striving so hard for so many years or decades to make the world realize that suspense/thriller/horror films can be great art, just like dramas, tragedies, etc. They can make us be afraid of the dark, of looking around foreign corners, of being alone in a large house. Once they exorcized our demons enough, they began to pass on the torch, knowing with a grin that we would all follow in their footsteps with ease and respect. So what did we make? A movie about killer videotapes.
What a legacy we lead.

Rarely does a movie meet every one of my greatest expectations. Sometimes the film exceeds them (The Fountain). Sometimes it disappoints, but not enough to make me unhappy (Snakes on a Plane). More often than not, my expectations are greeted with a big pile of disappointing shit (Superman Returns). 300, however, was exactly the action masterpiece I was hoping for. I had been pumped about this movie for so long, I was a little scared that it wouldn't be as good as I knew it could. No need to worry. 300 is a visual feast - the most testosterone filled film I've ever witnessed. The action/battle scenes are the best I've ever seen - Snyder's use of fast and slow motion made me jealous, for it's exactly the kind of filming style I always dreamed of adopting. Move over Lord of the Rings - this flick has your war scenes beat. Story/character wise, the film does exactly what it needs to do - move everything along quickly to get to the bloodbath. Anyone looking for more than that is, quite frankly, a bit of a tart. Honestly, people are being idiotic about this movie - if I hear one more person trash it for being "historically inaccurate" or "homoerotic", I'll probably shit a brick. I'd much rather see a film with no pretentions of "importance" and just wants to blow your mind, like 300, than a movie so fueled by being "serious and accurate" like, say, Gladiator, that it becomes a chore to watch. This movie is pure adrenaline filled fun from beginning to end, and will most likely be the best film of the year. A masterpiece. See it as soon as possible.

It's impossible not to enjoy a movie where you first realize a character is the bad guy when the camera moves into his eyes and he squints them tightly, glaring, Clint Eastwood style. All that was missing was a "Dun dun dun!" on the soundtrack...wait, I think they actually did have that. So, yeah, the movie was a whole lot of dumb fun, but unfortunately had as much of the 'dumb' as the 'fun'. Woo has proven he can directed a terrific action flick with a good script - just look at Face/Off, an action masterpiece. Here, he has the zest, but not the juice. Still...Travolta sure gives one mean eye-squint.

I love how when someone mentions Snakes on a Plane, all you ever hear is the main motherfucking quote from the motherfucking movie, as Sam Jackson would say. People seem to forget, in their conversations about this film, how hilariously fun it is. I near wet myself laughing, and I mean it as a compliment. Aside from Clerks 2 and Borat, it was the funniest flick of 2006. Sheer B-movie entertainment from start to finish. Yes, it could've been "better" - the last 20 minutes are almost snake free, and it's obvious that it would've and could've been brawnier, more profane, and more violent, if they'd been aiming for an R rating the whole time instead of last minute reshoots (can you imagine if Joe Pesci was Sam Jackson's partner?). Still, this flick is great fun, and is in the top 5 Great Trash movies of all time.

One of the best scenes in the action/adventure/drama 3:10 to Yuma is a quiet one. Christian Bale, the "good guy", and Russell Crowe, the "bad guy" (apostrophe's would make sense to those who've seen the movie), are locked up in a hotel, waiting for reinforcements to take Crowe to the train and send his murderous ways to justice. Crowe and Bale already have had an interesting relationship throughout the movie, where both seem to respect the other for doing in life what they wished they could do, but at the same time, disliking each other immensely for going through with it. Crowe offers Bale a 1000 dollar bribe to let him walk out the door. We expect Bale to make a big speech about how wrong that is, how ethically he could never live with himself again, etc. etc. But he doesn't. What he does is explain how he could never get away with it - if he ever spent that much money, people would know. He doesn't turn down the bribe on ethical grounds. He does it cause he doesn't wanna get in trouble. This is a hugely telling scene that few else have mentioned, and it is a perfect example of the Peckinpah way these characters are not seen in black and white, but a morally murky gray, where good guys can do bad things and bad guys can do good things. Honestly, I was expecting more action in 3:10 to Yuma. The trailers and TV spots made it look like a non-stop Western shoot 'em up. Although there are several instances of unexpected violence reminiscent of Peckinpah, there are only about three major action scenes in the film - but, when it was all said and done, I was totally happy about that. Because what had happened over the course of the film was that instead of anxiously awaiting the next gun battle, I became very interested in the characters, in their motivations, and for once - I had no idea who was going to survive till the end. Every time I thought I had the plot mapped out in this film, I was wrong. "Oh, here Russell Crowe is gonna escape, and Bale will make it his mission to hunt him down". Wait, nope - he's caught again 5 minutes later, and back they go on their initial quest. The movie kept surprising me in ways like this, and I'm very grateful for that. In the beginning, I thought the roles of Crowe and Bale should've been switched - I thought Russell Crowe's innocent smile seemed to designate a more "good guy", and Bale can play evil (American Psycho anyone?) better than just about any other actor. But it didn't take long to get into their characters. Bale is excellent as a hero who has lost all confidence from his family and bravery from within. Crowe is pitch perfect - we despise what his character does, but we see the inner conflict and we begin to like him. Look at the first scene, when he's drawing a bird and his gang approaches him to take over a stage coach. You can see the faintest hint of annoyance on Crowe's face. Later, he actually tries to escape his own gang before being caught by Bale and his posse - he tries to convince a girl he just met to leave with him, escape his life and his troubles. She refuses, and the plot begins. It's scenes like this that helped me love the movie. I loved everything they showed us, and everything they didn't. It's no secret that I adore films that are about two men who antagonize each other's lives but find an inner respect between them - Heat, Collateral, Changing Lanes, etc. This is another film like that. The dialogue between Bale and Crowe in every scene ring completely true. The action is top notch - the final 30 minutes are tense and exciting, and I admit to having delicious chills when Bale's son released the cows on the bad guys. And the ending is surprisingly moving. I wouldn't dare tell you what happens, but I will say I adored Crowe's reaction. At first, I thought his final action with the horse was a bit of a cheat - I thought I'd perfer it if he was actually making this sacrifice totally for his newfound comrade. But looking back on the movie, that wouldn't have made any sense - Crowe participating in Bale's mission already seemed a little unlikely, if it wasn't for the fact that his character has been so tormented between right and wrong that we buy he would do what he does. Still, though, the ending holds up, and even other plot holes found in the film (would you really use a real lock on a stagecoach decoy you know will get held up?) are ignored when faced with the whole. 3:10 to Yuma is exciting, honest, and surprisingly moving. I didn't enjoy it as much as the other film that opened the same week as it, Shoot 'Em Up, but it's still one of the better flicks out there in theatres right now.

I don't cry in movies. Oh, I have the occasional "manly mist", as my dad often puts it. Flicks like Requiem for a Dream, Schindler's List, Crash, Brokeback Mountain - all have made me get watery in the eyeballs. But nothing has made me blubber like a little girl - until I saw this damned movie. What a wonderful, amazing, heart breaking, evocative, beautiful, powerful, insightful film. I'll also have you know that I don't hand out 4.5 stars to movies easily - I'm not one of those 13 year old girls on this site that give 5 stars to anything they remotely like. This movie deserves now being on my list of most favourite flicks. It's everything I wanted it to be; I'd read the book many years before, so I knew the ending, but I had no idea it would move me so. I'm not too ashamed to admit that tears were rolling down my face and I was sobbing like a little girl at the end of it. The film's story is sad enough - it's fundamentally about that most tragic of times in a person's life; growing up and not being able to be a kid anymore, which is so tragic because you never know it's happening until it's already happened. The movie is about that transition, and how things like imagination, dreams, hope, and (spoiler warning!) death can affect it. The trailers made people believe it was a watered down Chronicles of Narnia - big on the fantasy action, low on everything else. Bullocks. The fantasy elements make up, at most, 15-20 minutes of the film. The rest is where it's heart lies, and it's where most people in the theatre were reduced to tears. A great, surprising, terrific, haunting flick that I won't be forgetting soon. Don't avoid it just because you think it's a "kid's movie", because you can learn more life lessons in this small film than the majority of important Oscar winners can.

I walked out of Breach thinking I would give it 3.5 stars on here. But then 10 minutes passed, and I realized how much I'd already forgotten of the movie. When the film is playing, you're engrossed, although never really thrilled or excessively intrigued. However, when the film concludes, you're left thinking "Is that all there is?" Don't get me wrong - I'm glad I saw Breach. It was well written, had a great musical score, was always interesting while playing, and Chris Cooper gave an electrifying performance - probably the best I've ever seen in his career. When he's on the screen, he's magnetic. It's almost impossible to look away. And during the film, I never once found myself looking at my watch, or wishing I'd gone down a couple more blocks and seen 300 again. It was definately interesting, and there were two or three scenes of low-key suspense. But ultimately, not a whole lot happens in the film. The biggest spy in the U.S is taken down, but there's never any sense of danger, of excitement, of severe intrigue or betrayal. The film is kind of like wallpaper - it looks nice when you're actually staring at it, but hard to remember vividly when you've turned and walked away. Perhaps one of the problems is that the only interesting person in the film is Chris Cooper's character. This wouldn't be a problem if he was the main character, but he's not - the film is given to Ryan Phillipe, who tries his best but never really engages us. Cooper's character remains a mysterious enigma - we see the things he does, but have no insight into why he does them. This helps in making him a very intriguing character to watch, but also helps make the movie that less potent. So while I was never bored, I was never really into it either, and with the exception of Chris Cooper's wonderful portrait of a very enigmatic man, there isn't a whole lot to remember about this film.

My first warning about this movie was when it blatantly showed on the posters that this movie won the Truly Moving Picture Award. Uh oh. It's my experience that any movie that has to tell it's audience it's Truly Moving is gonna be shit. Sentimental, sappy, syrupy, cliched, overwrought, completely predictable hogwash. On the plus side, Alison Lohman's hot. Even when she puts dirt on her face and *gasp* she looks like a man! Archie Comics put more thought into their stories than this movie. Flicka might be her friend, but I'd rather he be glue than be in this movie.

Not great, not terrible. The action scenes were lively and terrific fun, and Hellboy himself was hilariously over the top and just plain badass. But the script didn't make much sense, and the dialogue and supporting characters were cliched as Hell (har har).

When I walked out of this movie with my mercifully forgiving girlfriend, I heard an eight year old behind me talk to his brother - "that was the best movie I've ever seen!" I think that just goes to show you the intellectual level this movie is pointed at, cause I gotta be honest - if I saw this when I was eight, I would've loved it too. Now, thankfully, I've matured - too bad the writer/director of this (and Daredevil) obviously hasn't. I'll admit to finding a certain level of pleasure in seeing the actual character of Ghost Rider. I mean, he does look pretty cool, and there were a couple moments in the film where I almost forgot about how crappy it was. It all starts with the script. Judging from this one and M.S.J's last, Daredevil, the man can't write worth shit. His dialogue is almost exactly as cheesy and desperately trying to sound "mature" as my scripts in the 7th grade were. The story makes little to no sense at all. The characters have nothing but the most stock emotions - "I'm in pain cause my dad died." "I'm in pain cause my crush left me 10 years ago." "I'm in pain cause my skin is melting and turning on fire." Etc, etc. No one in this film is remotely believeable - and no, I don't mean because most of them are demons of the underworld. So the script sucks. The acting isn't too great either, although I'd argue Cage and Mendes do as good a job as they can with the roles given (and I fully support Mendes' decision to never button up the top four or five buttons of every shirt she wears in the movie). The direction is completely lifeless, and proves just how amazing Zack Snyder's work on 300 was. Even the special effects are underwhelming - M.S.J apparently still thinks that the world will be wowed by CGI at the level of The Mummy, but that time has long since past. And the oddest thing about the movie? It's boring and dull. There's only one action scene that really lasts more than a minute. The three demon henchmen of the bad guy - Earth, Water, and Wind - are dispatched within about 30 seconds. When you expect a fight scene or badass action scene, all Ghost Rider does is whip out a chain - one baddie dead. Twirls the chain to make a whirlwind - another baddie dead. You see the pattern. There's no action of excitement and no plotline worth interest - so all in all, a waste of my 3 dollars. Oh, and one final thing - you know you have to question the validity of this site when imdb has the movie at 5.6, rottentomatoes at 27% - and this one gives it an average star rating of 4 out of 5. That's more than The Godfather. 'Nuff said.

With all the "OMG!"'s and "LOL!"'s going on about this movie on Flixster, I want to add a three letter word myself - "WTF"??? Never have I asked the question "Why?" so many times during the course of one movie. I didn't count, but I probably asked it, in increasing fustration and even anger, every 25 seconds. Why is this character doing this? Why is this character acting this way? Why is this character even in the movie? Why is this character here, and how? Why is this action scene happening? Why did people think this script was filmable? Why do people love this fucking piece of trash so much? Backward reeleth the mind. Honestly, this movie was offensive to all 5 senses (and yes, I know that includes smell, taste, and touch - this movie sucks so much, it actually offended those senses too). When the only redeemable feature I have to say about a film is that the musical score was really fun, you know you're in trouble. And yet - everyone loves these movies so much. 4.5 rating on flixster for I think all three films. Even the critics are often kind with them. I just don't get it. The first one was stupid and highly overrated, but at least it had some moderately fun scenes and actually made coherent sense. There was a script for that movie. This one has no script. How could it? Nothing in this film makes any sense. I don't ask to always know everything that's going on in a movie, but I do ask that the filmmakers have the common courtesy of giving us some level of coherency, of continuity, of structure, of discipline with regards to making a storyline people can follow. Scenes were often so disjointed from previous ones that me and my girlfriend both would just throw our hands up and exclaim, "What the fuck?!?!" It's the most inexplicably sloppy film I've ever endured. One scene Jack will be on a boat - the next, he's a king of a tribal jungle island. How did this happen? No clue. Another scene will show Orlando Bloom being allowed off a haunted ship to shore (which also doesn't make sense, since this happened because he won (I think) a game and the stakes were his soul and the key - going to shore was neither), and in the next scene, he's sitting in a friendly boat, wrapped in a blanket, that the Kraken soon thereafter attacks for no good reason. How did he get on the boat? Who knows. And what about the scene where Kiera Knightley faces an enemy, smashes his head with a bottle, then 5 seconds later rushes to him "My God, what as the world done to you?". It's unbelievable, how anyone could possibly think this script was in filmable condition. It's like the director took out every scene that bored him, no matter how important to continuity they were. Anyways. The film obviously filled me with a very unexpected level of venom and spite. Oh, I wasn't exactly expecting to like the film. I make fun of everyone who loves these movies, because they all seem to be in the "OMG i luv Jonny Depp he's SO HAWT" club of 14 year old girls (and judging from the way this movie was made, I think it was made by 14 year old girls too - with ADD). However, I did have a totally instinctive prediction of a 3 star movie, which seems to be the average rating of Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer films I grudgingly have to admit aren't all that bad. This one is all that bad. It redefines the word "bad". Admittedly, the movie may have made more sense if I was in any way paying attention to the first half hour, which I was indeed watching but also talking constantly through (to stave off impending boredom, which eventually overtook me I'm sad to say). But even if the film wasn't completely inexplicable, confusing, disjointed, and incoherent, it's still just not a good movie at all. Johnny Depp's schtick got old. He was funny as a supporting character in the first film, but taking center stage here, his character is just old hat. He does the same thing in every scene - stumble around, arms flailing like a queen, and says the most unexpectedly drunk thing the writer's could think of. There's no depth to this character at all. But at least he's mildly interesting - Kiera Knightly and Orlando Bloom's characters are so stock, wooden, and useless that our hearts sink everytime they're on screen. So the story makes no sense. The characters are boring. What's left? Not much. The action scenes, when they actually come around, are mediocre. If you want to see real action/comedy done right, with intelligence and humour and excitement, rent Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don't think there was a single action scene in this film that didn't have a major logical loophole - but then, the whole movie is one giant loophole, loopholing itself into Loophole Hell (wow, who'dve thunk that this dumb a movie could inspire such poetry in me?). The direction and cinematography are nice to look at, but nothing special. Imagine what Martin Scorsese or Darren Aronofsky could do visually with pirate material. And, again, the score by Hans Zimmer is the only high point. Suffice it to say, this beloved and acclaimed movie (mostly by 14 year old girls, but I should be nice - many of my friends, even the ones really smart with films, enjoy this flick), inspired in myeuch loathing, such despising, that I literally cringe just remembering this film. I didn't enjoy the first one, but I never would've guessed that the second would find a place in my top 20 worst films of all time.

"Allright fellas, I'm the new director of Superman Returns, and this is what we're gonna do. We're gonna make it a love story. Shut up Ted, I'm calling the shots. It's gonna be a 2.5 hour love story between Superman and Lois Lane. Oh, sure Hank, quit worrying, there'll be some action. I've already paid for a sequence where he stops a plane from hitting the ground. Happy now? Good. So the "action" part is taken care of. Now, we could make this movie exciting or remotely enjoyable, but come on, that's sooooo cliche. Lets make it dull, plodding, and boring as all of hell. And I had a great idea last night in bed - lets make Luthor's big plan to kill Supes KRYPTONITE!!! That's never been done before, right?"

I'm very torn about how to rate Blood Diamond, which is fitting, because the movie is also torn. There are two films within Blood Diamond - a very good one, and an awful one. Sadly, the awful one wins out too often, and as well made a picture as this is, I have to give it a thumbs down. Strangely enough, however, this is mostly on ethical terms, which doesn't usually happen with me. Parts of Blood Diamond want us to be shocked, horrified, moved, appalled, and haunted by the real life tragedies taking place in Africa. But then, merely a minute or so later, the film wants to entertain us by showing a white guy shooting the hell outta everyone. It's all on very morally shaky grounds. Yes, the action sequences are highly entertaining - well made, well scored, well shot, well cut. It's very exciting. But should these scenes be exciting, or entertaining? Should they even exist? Not in this film, they shouldn't. The movie should either have committed to being a serious and tragic study of the horrors of mass geneocide in Africa, or it should've let that stuff go and focus more on being an action/adventure film. The movie tries to do both, and winds up simply offending me for being entertained. A couple guys on my floor love this movie. Why? Because of the stark realism, the underlying sadness, the disturbing horrors of the subject matter? Hell no. Because, in their words, "it's fucking awesome", "kickass action", "probably cooler than Casino Royale". These are the words they said. Which means that too many people who see this film ignore the tragedy and focus on the action, which seems to me to be the direction the filmmakers ultimately wanted. This isn't right. If Schindler's List was an action film about a German man who frees a starving and tortured Jew from a Nazi prison camp and then they go on the run, fleeing shooting Nazi's and having car chases and lots of explosions, hunting down an exotic diamond - would you watch it? Would it even be made, by anyone except perhaps Monty Python? No. But for some reason, by using material from Africa, this is Ok for Edward Zwick to do. Now, as I said before, I'm torn about how to rate this film, because technically it's one of the most well made films I've seen in quite a while. It constantly looks and sounds terrific. The cinematography is sharp and clear, the action is well shot, the acting (while too over the top with some people - surely Dijimon didn't have to scream out every single line?) is very good, and the score is excellent. But even if I didn't find the method of storytelling to be morally repugnant, we still have a mighty big problem in terms of the script. Moments of truth and brutal honesty fight to share screen time with lame cliches and borderline Hollywood horseshit. Some lines are pretty painful. Some characters, such as Jennifer Connelly's (bless her smokin' hot soul), are completely useless. You know you're in trouble when you say to everyone that you're making a film about the plight in Africa, and a village being shot to shit by violent gang members are given as much screen time as Leo DiCaprio getting Jennifer Connelly's phone number. Who gives a shit if they fall in love? The country is going straight to hell - with this sort of subject matter, someone should've told Zwick he didn't need to put in a love story involving two white people. Speaking of the music, it's a terrific score by James Newton Howard, but it also enforces the ethical problem I have with the movie. Take the first action scene, for instance. It's the massacre of Dijimon's character's village. As we see women and children being slaughtered, we hear the pounding percussion on the soundtrack, with wailing electric guitars and kickass instrumentals, and we get a surge of adrenaline much like in 300. But...wait....a village is being slaughtered. And it really happened. Recently. Should we be enjoying this? Another problem I had with the film is that there's a mini-masterpiece of a flick in here. Dijimon's little boy is captured by the rebels. He, among others, are tortured and brain washed until they become 10 year old killing machines. This is disturbing, it's briliant, it's horrifying - it's exactly the kind of subject matter that deserves a whole movie to be made on. If I could remake this flick, I would dump everything involving Leo DiCaprio and blood diamonds, and just make it a film about this boy being so brainwashed that when his original father finally finds him to rescue him of the violent hell he's in, he doesn't even recognize him. This has amazing potential, but it's ignored to make way fore more gunfights and car chases. But I digress. Blood Diamond is a well made movie in the service of an ethically questionable and predictable script. Ignore this aspect and merely focus on the action/adventure, and you'll probably love it. But I couldn't, and therefore, I don't.

Just as dumb as I expected, but a lot more enjoyable than I anticipated. You definately have to be in the right mood for this sort of movie...kind of like a "Ok, brain's turned off, now get my testosterone flowing".

Isn't it ironic that with a movie about two of every animal being led onto a giant ark, the movie not only gets two stars but has two problems with almost every level of it's production? Honestly, I wanted to like this movie. Oh, I wasn't expecting greatness. Not by a long shot. But I was hoping that Steve Carell's hilarious charm would carry the flick. He tries, but ultimately, he just gets weighed down like the rest of this bloated film. I have a lot of problems with this movie, but first let me state that it's not, for the most part, a truly painful experience. If you're in a good mood for sappy, moderately and occasionally funny family fun, then you might have an allright time at Evan Almighty. But the movie has too many plot holes, too many inconsistencies, and just plain isn't funny enough for me to be charmed away. Lets start with the funniness aspect. Steve Carell is one hilarious dude. 40 Year Old Virgin is possibly my favourite comedy, The Office is possibly my favourite show - I mean, he's amazing. He's got a couple good lines in this flick (like right at the beginning, "I feel like the indian, looking at all the garbage" - 5 bucks to anyone else who gets that reference), but for most of the movie, he's unfortunately reduced to making loud screams and anguished noises. Like I said, I love Steve, but in terms of purely physical comedy, I'm afraid Jim Carrey pulled it off better. So the movie is surprisingly not very funny, but there's more problems than that. First major one I had - Steve's kids in this film must be from freakin' Mars. Can someone please inform Tom Shadyac that teenage boys are not gonna sulk and cry when they can't go on a hiking trip with their dad? Yeah, you heard right - a HIKING TRIP. Not Disneyland. Not a strip club. A FUCKING HIKING TRIP. Really, who the hell gives a shit? And in Bruce Almighty, Jim Carrey's profession was a newscaster, so there was lots of interesting comedic elements that could go with that. In this one, Evan's a politician. Sorry - that's not funny. When Bruce was fucking with people on the set of a newsroom, that was funny. When Evan is talked into passing a bill in congress, that's boring. And the animals I have such huge issues with, they alone sink the flick into Craptown. In an age where a person can find the Holy Mary's face on a Dorito and become the new saviour of life, is it really likely that a man who's beard grows immediately 5 seconds after he shaves, who's robes magically appear on his body, who's managing to build an ark the size of Vulcan, and who has HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF TWO OF EVERY ANIMAL HELPING HIM OUT AND FOLLOWING HIS EVERY COMMAND....what're the odds that every single person who sees him thinks he's crazy? Now, if no one could see the animals, or no animals appeared till the end, this problem would be fixed. But that's all the filmmakers got - Carrey had the powers of God, but Evan only has command of these animals, so they have to be around. But it's Washington D.C. No one questions where the hell giraffes and elephants and monkeys and lions have come from, and why they are all following Evan? It's a gaping plot hole that's never answered. And guess what - there's more major plot gaps. My favourite (meaning least favourite) has to be the actual flood itself. It's bad enough that no one believes a man who managed to get all the animals of the world onto his ark in mid-day Washington, but when the flood comes and all the people on camera run into the boat, and the water destroys the suburbs and flows throughout all of Washington D.C in a big (and chessy) special effects sequence, we realize - hey, people are drowning here. Not every person in those suburbs are in that boat, and no one in Washington got on. So that means when we're watching the happy ending of the bad guy getting spit on by llamas and the family finally going on their wonderful little walk, babies and wives and husbands and homes are all 100 feet deep under water. That's not funny. That's terrible. And in a movie that shoves down it's preachy message of doing "acts of random kindness" (A.R.K - get it? If not, don't worry, it's literally spelled out for us in the end), and actually has a tree-hugging message as strong and pathetic and corny as it's Bible-humping message, these "acts of randomn death and destruction", as I like to call them, are ignored and pretended like nothing went wrong. Well, I'm afraid something did go wrong. Terribly wrong. And it's name is Evan Almighty. And I'm afraid all the best intentions and slightly humourous moments in the world can't save it now.

First off - for those of you wondering if Rambo delivers what it promises, rest assured it does....in the final 40 minutes. I don't think anyone is going to walk out of this movie thinking that Sylvester Stallone still couldn't kick their ass, because the final 40 minutes of this film are sheer, unstoppable, badass mayhem; and God help me, I enjoyed it. That's not to say the movie is perfect, by any means. In fact, there are times where the flick edges near Blood Diamond-unethical territory. But the difference between Rambo and Blood Diamond is that Blood Diamond pretended to be way more deeply involved in the personal struggle of a nation in genocide, when really all it cared about was Leo DiCaprio kicking ass, and Rambo...well, Rambo pretends at times to care too, but it does a far worse job of pretending. And besides - no one walks into a Rambo movie expecting a history lesson or a current events teaching. We pay our money to see John Rambo blow the living hell outta the bad guys, and boy does he ever (eventually). So what's good about this installment of Rambo? It isn't much like the first one. Many people found that a classic - I found it an unethical, immoral travesty, where Rambo was little more than a whiny, bitchy, psycho killer. Gone in this film is the whiny, gone is the bitchy, and while the psycho killing machine is still there, at least this time he's actually killing bad guys and not innocent local cops. The action is top-notch. Yes, there are times where I questioned the morality of being so entertained by a nation's suffering, and admittedly it does take Stallone a while to get going. But once Rambo shoots that first arrow through the head of a villian, all hell breaks loose and the action never stops until the end credits. The violence is especially something to take note of. Gone are the silly slow-mo running from explosions - we're entering a Rambo world where when people are shot, they're limbs are blown off, blood sprays everywhere, the tops of their heads shatter into pieces, the works. In fact, it's possibly the most violent movie I can recall ever seeing in a theatre (which really made me feel sorry for the 5 year old girl in the audience - honestly, how stupid are parents these days?). But we go in expecting violence, and Stallone delivers. He films the action well, with impressive shaky-Saving-Private-Ryan-cam, and the explosive music by Brian Tyler adds to the excitement. I gotta admit; the last act almost made me pump my fist in the air, laughing with testosterone boiling through my blood. Now. Onto the bad stuff. The script is not well written. Yes, things happen that take us from point A to point B, but there's never any real suspense or surprise, and the dialogue consists of little else than monosyllabic grunts and curses. Sylvester himself sometimes looked a little....bloated, puffy. It was interesting to watch the first film and realize he didn't always look like he eats steroids for breakfast. But this is a character no one else, I'm guessing, could play as well as Stallone, so he does a fair enough job. But there's something a little unethical about the whole proceedings that made me uneasy, and reminded me of the same problem I had with Blood Diamond. That film, if you remember, trivialized the pain and sufferings of innocent people being massacared by forcing the audience to be entertained when a white guy shoots everyone up. Well, the same thing happens in this flick. I was more forgiving this time because the movie never masqueraded as something noble or just, and Rambo at least this time wasn't killing innocents himself. But it doesn't change the fact that during scenes of a village being slaughtered, with it's women being raped and it's children having their arms hacked off or worse (again, it really is a violent movie)...I didn't want to cheer. I didn't wanna pump my fist in the air when John Rambo showed up at these times, because Stallone directed these scenes of suffering so well that the film seemed to forget it's supposed to entertain us, not depress us. If I want to see the true evils of the world and how sinister people can massacre their own brothers, I'll watch Schindler's List, not the new Rambo picture. There's also, in the movie, a pro-violence message I can't agree with. One of the Christians early on disregards Rambo for killing, and of course in the end, he's proven wrong and must kill another to survive. It seemed to me that Stallone was telling us "Kill or be killed", and I'm not sure that's the right message to give out in these tumultous times. Overall, though, Rambo was an efficient little action picture. I would've liked more, personally - as I said, the movie takes so long to get set up that by the time Rambo actually starts kicking ass, there's only about 30 minutes left in the movie. Another half hour of hardcore action probably would've elevated my rating by half a star, but as it is, I can't complain too much. It's not great entertainment, but it's not bad either, and if you can ignore the ethical qualms of being entertained by the representation of genocide, then you'll probably have a rip-roaring good time.

Watching Doomsday is sort of the cinematic equivalent of being raped but kinda liking it. It hurts all over, but as terrible as it is to admit, you're having a good time. That's the best way I can put the ultra-violent Doomsday, which is so blatantly campy and ridiculous that it's a shame genious passes it by as often as it does. Neil Marshall wrote and directed. He also made The Descent a couple years back, one of the greatest horror films of all time, so I looked forward to this movie with relish. And let it be said, Marshall hasn't lost his touch in directing kinetic thriller/action. The problem here, though, is the script. The movie is such a massive clash of tones and genres, that one of two things must've happened - either Marshall wrote it as a purposefully bad comedy and the studio demanded changes to make it more palatable, or Marshall wrote it completely straight and the studio demanded changes to make it more funny. I'm not sure which direction would've made it a better movie, but by trying to do both, Doomsday butchers itself into what is really a fascinating mess. My personal guess is that it was originally planned to be a Planet Terror style film - a movie with high-end production values, made slickly, but written and acted so cheesily (on purpose), that the movie is a barrell of laughs and fun. But Planet Terror (when attached to the Grindhouse disaster) tanked, and I think that made the studio nervous; hence the last minute changes. So what we get is, essentially, a grindhouse film without the grind. Maybe if it had left all the old-school stuff like the scratches on the film and the Missing Reel segments, maybe then we would've gotten the joke. But see, the problem is that the movie is so butchered and torn that no one really gets the joke, because no one seems to know if there is a joke at all. I often found myself laughing in the movie, yes, but unlike the uproarious time during Planet Terror, no one else was laughing with me, and sometimes I wondered if the movie was in on the joke itself. But I developed a theory while watching the film that no one else has seemed to consider, so I think it's worth mentioning. Before I go into all the many, many flaws of the film, I would like to say that my personal theory is that it's a rock opera. Listen to the music. Pay special attention to it. It's not scored like a typical action/horror film, but instead uses rock band instruments that build into these epic choruses and verses, but they don't really follow the action - they build and build and finally end, making a song. No one on screen sings along, persay, but watch the actions they take, all of the over-the-top excessiveness, and you can see a pattern forming between the music and the visuals. So, it is my opinion that Doomsday is indeed a rock opera, much like Jesus Christ Superstar, and that's about the level of reality one should take it at. Once I discovered this (and I still think it's relatively valid, even if admittedly kinda weird sounding), I found myself enjoying the movie on a stupid level. It's dumb, but it's a very exciting dumb. The score, sound effects, epileptic editing, shaky camera work, all adds up to a very loud, bombastic, idiotic motion picture. Fun? Yes. Worthwhile? Not sure. The plot, really, is all over the place. Often many things that felt like revelations or important events made no sense, such as the actual state of living in quaranteened Scotland. Why are they living in hiding, if they have been told no one else is out there? Exactly how did they survive the virus? Where are they getting gas for their motorbikes, mascara for their eyelids, tatoo ink for their bodies? The questions are endless. And then, to make matters more confusing, we're introduced to the other camp of survivors, and the movie takes a radical turn from a Mad Max ripoff to Braveheart, complete with horses, castles, and knights in not-so-shining armour. Huh? And the characters are no help - we need someone to relate to in a story this chaotic, but none of the characters are remotely likeable or even defined. This isn't helped by the fact that the dialogue is aggressively terrible and cliche-ridden (so much so, that I once again felt that Marshall originally wanted this to be a straight-up comedy - I mean, the man wrote The Descent, clearly he knows how to write well). The lead actress (the topless chick that got killed in Hollow Man) is sexy in a "she could beat me up after sex" kind of way, but she's a very hard person to get accustomed to. And as much as this movie sometimes seems to be playing it straight, there are instances of such extreme goofiness that I laughed increduously while everyone else shaked their heads in disbelief. How could a major movie get away with some of this stuff, like the random shot of a bunny rabbit being shot to shit, or a dude's decapitated head flying towards the camera, actually hitting the camera, and sliding down smearing blood all over the lens? Anyways, Doomsday isn't as bad as the critics are telling you, as long as you remember that it's probably a Grindhouse style rock opera. The action is intense and exciting, the music is fantastic, the actors chew the scenery so much you fear for their dental care, and there are some big laughs, intentional and unintentional. All in all, I had a good time watching Doomsday. But I can't shake the feeling that there was an opportunity missed here, and that as fun as it is, Doomsday is just really, really stupid.

The Incredible Hulk managed the impossible - it made me like the Hulk. Really, he's an uninteresting character, and a boring superhero. I always felt this, even as a little boy occasionally reading one of his comics. But this film made me like him. When he came up on screen, I was pumped right up - excited, exhilirated, and just plain enjoying myself. The Incredible Hulk is one of the best films of the year, and probably the best blockbuster film of the year so far - yes, I think it's better than Iron Man, a comparison which few will agree with but I'd like to explain in a bit here.

I do feel a little bad for Ang Lee though. He tried his best. His version of The Hulk in 2003 divided critics, disappointed at the box office, and was generally loathed by fans. The easy explanation for this is that the movie was horrendous, but mostly it's because Hulk never did much in that film. He hardly smashed, he rarely kicked ass, and even when he did show up, the CGI was awful. Ang tried to make it ambitious, but when you have Hulk fighting mutant poodles, well, you can pretty much kiss your fanbase goodbye. Louis Lettrier tried to remedy that with this Hulk film, and he does an excellent job. Yes, it's true that this film relies more on action than thoughtful character development. But here's the thing - that's an IMPROVEMENT. Now that we've seen two approaches to Hulk - a thoughtful, introspective approach, and a balls-to-the-walls action heavy approach, it's clear which was the most successful, and the most appropriate. People who complain about this film not being as thoughtful as the other Hulk are missing the point - the Hulk is not a good enough character to warrant a thoughtful film. Sure, the dilemma Bruce Banner faces is pretty big. But how many scenes can we have of him moping around, not wanting to become the Hulk? Because remember, we in the audience all want him to become the Hulk, even though Hulk himself can't do much - he jumps, he smashes, he punches, he yells, and that's about it. So taking a philosophical, quiet approach to this character is just wrong, because he's not a good enough character to do this for.

So what does this movie give us? In short - everything most of us wanted last time. We're given enough character development to care about what happens, enough plot development to drive the story forward without losing momentum (although the second act does get bogged down a little), and plenty of great action scenes. The action in this movie is far superior to Iron Man's, which I found cartoony and kinda childish. I perfer my action to be gritty and as realistic as possible, and Lettrier films the action scenes in this movie exceptionally well. The chase scenes with just Edward Norton are relatively exciting, even if they are basically Jason Bourne 4, but once he becomes Hulk, things get really interesting. Hulk is basically in only three or four action scenes, but they're so incredible and actually surprisingly lengthy that we don't mind. Hulk kicks supreme ass in this film, throwing tanks at helicopters and using police cars as boxing gloves, and when he finally yells out "HULK SMASH!", I got very giddy indeed. It's just a lot of fun, this movie.

The CGI is a lot better. While it's always obvious we're just looking at a computer generated blob, I nevertheless was able to suspend my disbelief more this time around. The Hulk in this movie looks more fleshed out, more pumped up, more believeable and realistic. The animators even gave him some of Norton's facial features, although that's pretty subtle. The villians are much more threatening than the past film, too - William Hurt is solid, and Tim Roth plays his bad guy with glee (the whole movie essentially revolves around the three confrontations between his character and Norton's). When he finally becomes The Abomination, it was worth the wait, and we're treated to what is probably a 15 minute long showdown (even though the end of this battle is slightly anti-climactic, as the end of Roth's character is left uncertain). Yes, the story can be called a little standard, and the trailers (damn them - easily the most frustrating trailers I've ever seen from a big budget film), give away basically the entire plot of the movie. If you've seen the trailers, you've basically since the whole film condensed into 2 minutes, and even the wonderful surprise cameo at the end is given away in the commercials. But the zest and energy the filmmakers give the story makes it transcend the material. This is the Hulk movie I wanted last time - I don't give a shit about his daddy issues or romantic problems, I just wanna see him smash stuff up real good.

I mentioned earlier that this movie is better than Iron Man. Few agree, but that's my opinion. I perfer my comic book films leaning more towards the serious and dramatic side, and that's definitely not the direction Iron Man went. Don't get me wrong - I love the comedy aspects of Iron Man, and Downey Jr's biting performance was the highlight. But the more serious stuff of Iron Man was disappointing, and the action scenes (as few of them as there were), were pretty light. Lets be honest - the final confrontation between Iron Man and the villian was pretty goofy. Not so here. While possibly more lighthearted pleasure can be derived from watching Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk is a more rewarding experience overall - it's truly exciting, sometimes suspenseful, and downright badass. The music by Craig Armstrong is wonderful, the cinematography is sharp and clear, and the writing/direction is solid. That's not to say this film is without flaws. As I said before, the second act is occasionally tedious. As great as Edward Norton is, sometimes I got impatient waiting for him to become The Hulk and kick some more butt. Liv Tyler is horrendous. It's not that I think she's miscast so much as I think she's a horrible actress all of the time. She has that whiny, high pitched voice, always sounds like she's breathing way too hard, cries all the time, and is just plain ugly to me. I can't stand her. Some aspects of the plot were all over the place, too...I still don't quite understand how Norton was able to talk to Mr. Blue from all sorts of different computers all over the world. But these are pretty minor quibbles, I suppose.

Overall, I greatly enjoyed The Incredible Hulk. It's superior entertainment, and it's lack of surprises or anything especially innovative is the only thing keeping me from giving this 4 stars. Something that does trouble me though is where to go from here? How many times will we pay to go see Hulk smash? This movie opens up possibilities of two new-to-come villians (I only caught The Leader, but apparently Doc Sampson is here too), and even proposes a possible Avengers film. But is The Hulk a strong enough character? I don't have an answer for that. What I can readily admit to, though, is that on the basis of this film, I'll definitely be in line for the next Hulk picture - something I couldn't say after watching Ang Lee's disaster.

If you're planning on seeing 10,000 B.C in theatres, stop over at IMDB.com first. Go to the main page. It has an average 4.9/10 rating, with audiences rating this mind you (not snobby critics, but normal average joes, people who usually like this crap). But that's not the real funny part. Go to the section makred Memorable Quotes, and go to that page. Guess how many there are? Two lines. They are as follows; first, the classic - "Do not eat me when I save your life!" (spoken by the hero to a sabretoothed tiger, by the way) and, even more memorable, "Look, it's growing so fast". Sage, timeless passages of dialogue. Up there with "Here's lookin' at you, kid" and "May the force be with you". Hopefully this gives you a little bit of an idea of the intellectual level this movie is based at. 10, 000 BC is one of the great modern howlers of recent cinema. You'll likely be hurting from laughing so hard. But unlike other funny recent films like Planet Terror or Superbad, this one isn't in on the joke. I truly believe writers Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser (also the film's composer and actually talented composer of other films) felt they were creating a new modern action/adventure classic, a fantasy/fable people of all ages could enjoy. Well, they didn't. 10 Thou is a lifeless, inert, braindead film that is so fucking bad it sometimes achieves a certain level of respectibility - any movie this bloody stupid has to have some balls to show it's face in cinemas. Lets start with the historical inaccuracies. It's causing a lot of annoyance with many audience members - not only the snobs and critics, but yes, even the Jo Blo's. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to feel vaguely suspicious about a movie showing a time on Earth where a tribe can become involved, in one long trek, with native americans, african americans, vikings, and egyptians. I was half expecting the Roman Empire and Napoleon to pop up. The filmmakers are insisting it's just a fantasy and shouldn't be taken as historical verbatim, but I feel that's a total copout. The title suggests - no, PROMISES - that the movie will have some sort of basis in fact. Look, 300 had some historical inaccuracies too, and also spun a little storytelling embellishments to make things more exciting. But it never insulted our intelligence, and because the film was created in such a different and modern way, we never really thought about it or cared. I mean, for chrissakes, there were electric guitars on the soundtrack - clearly, they were just having fun. This movie is too dull, too banal, to fucking stupid to be having fun, or giving fun. Look, I wanted to enjoy the movie too, on a sort of Congo type hilarity level. But it just couldn't happen. The movie takes itself way too seriously for something so shoddily created. The special effects are about on the level of Jurassic Park's, further continuing the road block of quality CGI has apparently reached. The script itself is hilariously bad, contrived, and predictable. The dialogue is painfully wooden and cliched, with some of the above mentioned lines only a sampling of it's stupidity. A really great exchange of dialogue was "I will never leave you." "You'll never leave me?" "No, never". I mean, who comes up with this stuff? I recently re-read a Batman script I wrote in grade 6, and it had better dialogue than this crap. The way the actors recite it doesn't help. How can we take someone seriously saying this shit without any twinkle in their eye? When Al Pacino or Anthony Hopkins are given duds of lines to say, they give it with such gusto we don't really notice, and often wink to prove they know it's bad but wanted to have some fun anyways. Not so here. The main actors are all uniformly terrible, with the main actor being once a model and clearly did not take any acting classes from said Pacino or Hopkins. The plot itself is a let down. Not only is it completely predictable (wasn't this the exact same plot of Apocalypto, an infinitely better film?), but it often is completely incomprehensible due to the fact the filmmakers clearly never looked at a map in their entire life. These characters literally walk from snowy mountains in what appears to be North America to a rainforest jungle to an African wasteland to the Egyptian desert, all in what is apparently a couple months (the jungle is really bad, because they literally step right out from the mountains into the jungle, and the snow is still seen in the background when they enter this massive rainforest). This trek is because the heroes are following a small captured tribe of theirs, containing the love interest as well, but it doesn't make any sense for the villians to be going to all this work and treking across what is apparently the entire world, for just a small handful of slaves. It doesn't ever hold water, and is just an excuse for Emmerich's crappy special effects and what is surprisingly a very boring and action-less story. The movie constantly brings up comparisons not only with Apocalypto, but also 300, which the studio obviously wanted this movie to be. The comparisons aren't nice to poor little 10,000 BS (I meant to type BC, but i think BS somehow works better). Apocalypto was tense and involving - this movie isn't. 300 was adrenaline filled action and excitment - this movie isn't. The film this is most comparable to is Excalibur, which is one of my most hated movies of all time and appeared to be made by a small porn crew for 5000 bucks. This flick isn't much better. Look, it is indeed possible to derive some pleasure from something this awful. It really is a funny movie. I watched it rather innebriated and kind of enjoyed myself, even though I was cringing in embarassment as often as I was laughing at the retardedness of the film. If you completely turn off your brain, and I do mean COMPLETELY turn it off, you might have an Ok time. I'm sure I would've liked this if I was 10 years old. But it's lazy filmmaking, it's sloppy filmmaking, and during a time where there are literally dozens of treasures just coming out on DVD, why waste your time in the theatre watching this idiocy?

This is definately the closest a film has ever been to an actual book. The movie is literature in almost every way - from the rather intrusive narration to the development and depth of the characters to the unhurried flow of the plot, this is a short story transformed into film. And, it should be added, this is hardly criticism. While I never felt deeply moved, saddened, uplifted, etc. during Little Children, I was constantly and consistently engrossed and involved. I got to know these characters, and know them well. Even the ones with the most mystery, or the ones that are the most unsympathetic and even monstorous (like Jackie Earl Haley's pedophile), I understood and felt a connection with them by the end of the film. There's a moment in the flick where a background character goes on a date with the pedophile, and within one two-shot, without him ever telling her a thing, she suddenly knows how creepy and sexually perverted he is. The shot of her breaking down into tears from the realization that this nice guy is just yet another sicko is heartbreaking and true, and it reflects the theology of the entire film - of the masks we wear to hide pain, suffering, and indecency. From top to bottom, the cast is strong, although many actors/actresses were underused (or in the case of Jennifer Connelly, she definately needed a nude scene. Or two). The direction and cinematography is never flashy, but always important and effective. The screenplay is evocative, and Thomas Newman's music, as always, kicks ass. Having said all this, the film isn't perfect. The voice over narration, coming from an outside source reading the actions from a third person point of view, keeps in synch with the literary aspects of the film, but always takes us out of the movie - it reminds us, every time it comes on, that we are indeed just watching a film (and plus, I giggled every time I heard it cause it reminded me of that Family Guy scene where Peter is narrating his life - "I walked down to the kitchen and looked with a grimace at what Lois had served for dinner"). Many characters and subplots are not given the attention needed - Winslet's husband, for instance, has one tense and wonderful scene, then disappears for basically the rest of the film. And I'd go so far as to call the ending slightly anti-climactic - while what happens in the park is not what you'd expect from a pedophile running into a deserted area with a knife, it still feels almost - well, let me say that i think Todd Field, the director, felt that this ending was giving closure to characters, but I don't think it's closure at all - they will continue to hurt, they will continue to hurt others, and for the rest of their lives after the credits roll, they will make the lives of their lovers miserable. This isn't closure, which is fine, but the way Field directs it, I get the feeling he did think it was closure, which makes it feel slightly like a cheat. Still, this is a masterful film - involving, evocative, disturbing, wonderful, beautiful, and just damn good.

And then some movies just come out of nowhere and blindside you with their greatness. Children of Men is definately one of those flicks. A beautiful, haunting, powerful, emotional, exciting, thought provoking, eye-popping spectacle. The film is glacial at first, but then there is one of the most complex action scenes I've ever seen that is done all in one take, and the audience is riveted from thereafter. It's sort of like a Schindler's List for science-fiction films. Great movie, a really wonderful experience to watch it, and won't ever be forgotten.

It's not really good enough to be 3 stars, but then it's not really bad enough to be 2.5 stars - think of it as a 2.75 star rated movie. It's well made with some terrific music especially, but the plot is ultimately kinda dumb and predictable (me and leasha guessed the two biggest twists before they happened). However, I wasn't exactly bored while watching it, so that's a plus I guess.