Let Down's

An incomprehensible, self-indulgent mess of post-apocalyptic anxiety and political paranoia, a confusion of half-baked social critiques, pop-culture references, sci-fi whimsicalities, and anti-corporate satire straining for significance. Southland Tales is barely sane gibberish that would be only slightly tougher to understand if it were in Aramaic.

It would almost be easier to list the things Southland Tales does not have than the things it does. It plays host to pop stars, porn stars and presidential candidates. It features a film within a film, and a pair of twins who may not actually be twins, and a team of scientists who uncover "a rift in the fourth dimension". Southland Tales finds room for pretty much everything. Everything, that is, except a plot.

Southland Tales is never boring, exactly. It has a thick vein of self-deprecating humour, and enough wild set-pieces to keep the senses on edge (I particularly liked the moment when Scott's drugged policeman peers into the mirror and finds his image a few seconds out of synch, and the out-of-nowhere set piece that has Timberlake lip-syncing his way through a Killers song). But its frustrating and finally rather pointless. Is there anything going on behind these randomly firing synapses? Is there anything about its mood of zonked-out West Coast paranoia that Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly didn't do better? It is a film that is lively but never truly alive.

Though I did admire the acting. Not necessarily because of the strong performances, because there are none - how could there be when there's nothing to latch on to? - but for the actors' ability to deliver their lines with seriousness and enthusiasm despite the awfulness of their project. The musicians who played on as the Titanic sank comes to mind.

One of the most confusing, ridiculous, pretentious and disastrous cinematic train wrecks I've ever seen.

When I heard about this movie I was drooling with anticipation to see the next Quentin Tarantino masterpiece, but what a load of crap! The only reason I'm giving it such a high rating, in my opinion, was that it was interesting to see Kurt Russell play out of character, for him.
So let me explain, see according to the media, Tarantino was inspired by the cheap, burn-and-churn films shown in the grindhouse cinemas in the '60s and '70s, where thrill-seeking audiences would pay a buck to watch cheap B-movies shunned by respectable picture houses. Tarantino neatly emulates the sleazy look of these films through the calculated use of cheesy yellow titles, a hissy soundtrack, a missing reel and the occasional loss of color. There's even a '70s sensibility in the clothing and hairstyles.
It's just that he's trying to emulate something that wasn't very good to begin with. In short, he's spent millions reproducing rubbish. And while the grindhouse movies of old were packed with cheap thrills, the only thrills in Death Proof arrive in a brief slaughter halfway through and in a chase during the last 20 minutes - approximately 25 minutes of the total running time.
That leaves nearly 90 minutes of exceptional dullness as the victims-to-be sit around talking. And it appears Tarantino has lost his ear for the kind of nerdy but fun dialogue he made his own in earlier efforts.

Death Proof is an out-and-out dud, a film so profoundly dull, so relentlessly misguided, so criminally self-indulgent I almost feel bad criticizing it. It's like kicking a man on crutches.

Gloopy and outrageous, this schlock horror tribute is pure trash!
Rose McGowan stars as the go-go dancer leading a fightback against the flesh-eating terror stalking a small town, and gets to wear the coolest prosthetic leg ever. Planet Terror is hectic, stupid, and all together unmemorable.

For some reason this movie was a huge dissappointment to me. They left a lot of things unanswered, and most of the plot didn't make any sense, not to mention it didn't stay true to the original superman story, i mean how hard is it to actually read the comics and stick to that! Jeez! The special effects were all right, nothing really amazing, and the acting was mediocre at best. My recommendation is to skip this one, don't waste your time or your money.

While it's often fun watching Jim Carrey handle more serious material the same cannot always be said of director Joel Schumacher. Over and over again, he mistakes looming shadows and manic outbursts for tension, and his ponderous, ham-fisted directorial style creates more questions than it answers.
I understand there is a mystery and certain lore to 23, but this film doesn't do it justice. And does Agatha really read the entire book while waiting for Walter to pick her up? And if so, why does it take Walter what seems like weeks to finish it?
Carrey does his best(hence the three star rating), but the film never gets psychologically creepy, never makes the viewer question what is fiction, what is reality, and most importantly what the number 23 is all about.

The Life Aquatic is a Wes Anderson film through and through. Thanks to him, "quirky" has become one of the most overused words in entertainment writing, and there's no lack of his signature touches throughout the movie. From the use of stop-motion animation to represent various forms of sea life and the attendant nonsensical scientific terms ("wild snow mongoose" and "rubber tide" being my personal favorites) to the impressive shots of the interior Belafonte set, Anderson always rewards the careful observer in his films. It's a beautiful picture to look at, as all of his films are, but good use of color and mixing up your film stock does not make it a good movie, or even entertaining for that matter.

This movie will ultimately be remembered more for the trademark Anderson look than for any of its characters, plot, or any emotional impact what so ever........The Life Aquatic is a boat trip to nowhere, cinematic flotsam that drifts quickly out of mind.

A pretty fun movie that makes good on laughs and gory gross-outs, and even some effective action.
Of course, Slither isn't for everyone....
It's over-the-top, disgusting, stupid, bizarre and totally weird. In other words, it might be just what you're looking for, but it's just not my type of film.
Although I do love Nathan Fillion, so that's why the full star.

After so many people gushing over this movie and giving it such high praise I was more than looking forward to watching it, but when I finally did I was left feeling, I don't know....empty.
American Psycho is, to say the very least, a disturbing film, even if the grisly killings take place mostly off-screen. It is a film about someone who is only human through his vices. While the film tries desperately to catch something about the psycho that an audience could latch onto about him that is positive besides admiring his good looks, it nevertheless can't put the psycho together to look like a real person we could care about. He has become a composite sketch of what a serial killer is like, touching bases with some of the famous ones like Ted Bundy. He, in essence, remains an illusionary being, someone who doesn't exist as himself. And that is what becomes the main problem for the film that is both creepy and sickly funny, but offers no insights into a serial killer's mind-set that hasn't been said before.
The movie took the back way out with its ending suggesting that all the killings are in the psycho's head, which just left me unsatisfied to say the least, there was no redemption or conclusion of any kind. I like ambiguous and challenging endings, but a movie of this kind needs to leave us with Something. Otherwise there's no point in making the thing at all.

I don't get what all the hype was about, maybe its just not my type of movie. Day-Lewis gives a spirited performance in this too long, too boring, plotless character study. Whether it's histrionic or award-quality is all a matter of opinion I suppose. There Will Be Blood strives for boldness, instead of just being bold. It doesn't cut, and it doesn't bleed.

This movie was sooo disappionting! I enjoyed Milla's other films that I was surprised how bad this movie was, the concept was actually really cool but they could of done such a better job with it and all the action and violence was great and all but lacked something, I'm not sure what that something is but I just wasn't "Wow'd"...the acting was poor and their was no depth to any of the characters and I was pretty much bored, there were very few parts in the movie that kept my attention and was somewhat entertaining. The whole style and feel to the movie was appealing its just too bad it was overshadowed by a really sucky movie.

I didn't dislike this, but I didn't like it as much as I wanted to when I first saw the trailer. The only real action in the film occurs in the very first scene. The rest of the movie is a meditation on love, loss, grief, science, and closure, more of a sci-fi think piece than the grand adventure I was hoping for.

The story takes place in three periods of time and cuts among them frequently: A 16th century conquistador named Tomas (Jackman) searches for the fountain of youth (here, the Biblical Tree of Life) amid the ruins of the Mayan civilization, having been sent there by Queen Isabella (Weisz), who's knee-deep in fending off the Spanish Inquisition. In 21st century America, we meet scientist Tommy (Jackman), who is researching brain tumor cures, spurred on by his dying wife Izzi (Weisz). And in the 26th century, Tom (Jackman, see a pattern here?) is all alone, traveling through space to an unknown destination, carried by Aronofsky's vision of the future of space travel: An oversized snow globe.

Though I'm sure this will be the subject of endless debate and interpretation, the three men are not really the same person over the 1,000 years, though I'm loathe to provide complete details for fear of ruining the plot's few worthwhile secrets. Aronofsky would like us to believe there's a huge mystery to unravel here, but it's not really the case. He begins the film intercutting among the three stories with abandon, and indeed we start off extremely confused. But soon it all comes together: Izzi is writing a story about Tomas (which may or may not be based in fact), and Tommy has previously uncovered an "old growth" tree in South America which has impressive rejuvenating effects. What to make of the snow globe in space, what with its cargo of one man and one giant tree? It's connected to both stories and is made clear in due time.

As always, Aronofsky demonstrates impressive technical ability behind the camera, and I can't complain one bit about either lead actor, with Jackman particularly expressive, pouring more emotion into his role than I've ever seen him do. It's Aronofsky's half-baked script where the film really falls apart, first trying the patience with its inscrutability then abruptly turning you off with its obviousness. For a film that spans 1000 years and reaches from earth to space, it all comes off as very small and staid. It's ultimately a story that just doesn't smack you with the grandeur it ought to.

As for me, I ultimately found the film interesting without being enthralling, pretty without being striking, and somber without being ominous.

The word "pretentious" gets batted around a lot by people who don't use it correctly. It does not mean, "This work of art requires that you think a lot, and it probably isn't much fun to watch it, so only arrogant people and posers will claim to like it." When really it means, "This work of art believes that it is much smarter than it actually is. It "pretends" at being something that it is not, namely intelligent. When in fact, its merely ponderous and a monkey could probably understand it." Thus, The Life Before Her Eyes, is a flawless example of a truly pretentious movie. It is full of fussed-over significant images and a bevy of delicately planned interlocking narrative motives, and it's about as subtle and clever as somebody clubbing you over the head with a baseball-bat.
Sure, both Evan and Uma gave good performances, and yes the film has the core of an inventive narrative and a twist that probably worked better as a literary device... But as a whole the film has a contrived emotional build up that fails to deliver the necessary punch it so desperately wants in the end.

A girl abandoned by her mother, a father unable to offer anything but hatred to his own children -- these are narrative elements of potentially great force, but they play out here without much shape, definition or power. Stylistically strange, sluggish and ultimately an unsatisfying domestic drama that is all too aptly named, just save yourself from "sleepwalking" through this film and go and take a nap instead.