The flicks of 2008

The best film of 2008... still dunno what else to add. ^_^

How come Borders gets exclusive rights to sell this movie? Snobby bastitches...
>:(

Will type a real critique laters... :p

The great thing about PIXAR is how their movies aren't just simple creations meant to amuse children, they are films meant to capture your imagination and touch your senses. WALL-E is perhaps PIXAR's most mature, thought-provoking, and daring film yet.

The film is untraditional in that there are few spoken dialogue (especially during the first 30 minutes), but if this film doesn't strike up any amazement nor stir up any feeling within, you are cold. Although the cautionary tale may seem heavy-handed, it's not. Rather, it's just a simple film meant to show what it means to be human, to have feelings, to be loved, to discover, and all those other life altering moments that define us. This little robot shows the best and perhaps only redeeming characteristics of humanity. Insignificant the lil' robot guy appears, he knows he's capable of more, and does so. Certainly PIXAR's sci-fi masterpiece that deserves to be put alongside classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris (original and remake), or heck, even Blade Runner, which once again brings me to asking this question: why is it only science fiction flicks only tackle such a heavy-handed subject? No matter... the film is fun, sweet, and an amazing achievement.

On a small scale, it works well as a simple love story, and the humor is persistent and handled well. I laughed, I nearly got weepy, was entranced by the story and visuals, and the film stayed on my mind long after leaving the theater. Watch it. Watch it again if ye must. ^_^

This is a weird little flick, but it is one that could be similar to the likes of Grosse Pointe Blank or even Leon: The Professional. Essentially, In Bruges is a film that injects an intriguing-enough story (ie: life) into a coupla lowlife hitmen. It's a smart and oft-funny film, driven mostly by its dramatic components littered throughout, unexpected humor, and characters to root and care for.

Want me to say more? In doing so, I might spoil the flick for ya. So I'll spew the gist: two hitmen are hiding out in a Belgium town called Bruges, awaiting their boss' (Harry, played by Ralph Fiennes) next orders after a botched hit. So all the while, it's just Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) checking out the sights which usually ends in arguments and disagreements since Ray wants nothing to do with Bruges. On the flip side, the film presents moments of how each characters' morals come into play, usually winding up in ironic moments, most of which tend to be amusing, but more often always add to a new depth with each character. The city itself is also a character, whenever Ken (and Ray) manage to go sight-seeing because the bulk of their conversations are mainly centered around the area. Not just Ray and Ken, but even Harry and supporting characters that include a midget, Ray's love-interest, and minor people that come and go. With that, the filmmakers managed to create a multi-layered story

For the most part, In Bruges is far more intriguing than how I had intended it to be, which I thought to be a Tarantino/Guy Richie-esque flick. It could be at time with the rather witty dialogue and seldom physical humor (very laugh out loud moments whenever they come), but it doesn't sit in this one area. The film is always thought-provoking from beginning to end, like the average "dramedy" when executed right. It outlines the basic humanity in such dark figures.

The end-of-summer masterpiece.

Will type s'more laters... ^_^

How do Apatow and co. keep churning out one hilarious movie after another? They might've had a hiccup with the seemingly unforgettable Drillbit Taylor and the overlooked Walk Hard, but they got back on track with one of the year's best. For starters, it's funny as hell, and the whole story is told so well that almost anyone can relate to the painful experience of a break-up. It may be full of lewd material, but it still retains truth and honesty and heart that it just struck a note during my viewing. I mean, shit, I can relate to Peter (Jason Segel)... of course, the movie doesn't present the material too dramatic like the painful, cringing experience that is The Break-Up, but enough to have the movie retain a sense of balance with its comedic elements. Great depiction of an everyday schmo, thanks to Segel's acting and writing, and the supporting cast were great, especially a scene-stealing Russell Brand as a UK musician. Need a good laugh? Go see this movie. Shoot, certainly one of 2008's best films... and it's about fuckin' time!

Has there ever been a better film about teen adolescence? I'm hardly a fan of Gus Van Sant flicks, especially after the overtly pretentiousness of his "Death Trilogy" (with the minor exception of Elephant). But all three films certainly led up to perhaps the best of the bunch. Though a tad hindered by a rather abrupt ending, the themes present in Paranoid Park gripped me from start to finish and took me back to a time when I was coming to grips with reality. Filmed in a similar style like his previous "Boring Trilogy," this film is anything but boring. Lemme stress: Paranoid Park is more accessible and well-balanced than those films. The film centers on youth culture, and the topic itself seems a tad dated, and I felt it to be, kinda like thinking, "C'mon Gus, get with the times." But hey, Dazed and Confused along with Almost Famous were allegedly the best films about the '70s, yet they arrived two decades later. Like "they" say, better late than never.

Paranoia and apathy are few themes that drive the film, and more are revealed as our youngster skater boy Alex (Gabe Nevins) meticulously pens a story that reveals a rather gruesome event. Basically, this 'accident' is a MacGuffin that exposes the seemy underbelly of contemporary youth. Alex is our poster boy for the current generation. I should mention, the deadly accident doesn't set him off. The kid was woeful from the get-go, showing very little interest in anything including his girlfriend. He does try, like reading the newspaper to show he does show some interest, or reluctantly agrees to "do it" with his gal, but as the film moves on, he reveals that he doesn't care anymore. The kid bottles up everything inside, but as he pens in a diary of some sort, he exposes his true self; a struggling young lad. A kid having trouble coping with life's shitty events.

The actors are a bunch of unknowns, therefore untrained, yet their inexperience never hinders that contemporary youth look; insecure, uncomfortable, fractured, uncertain. This results in many scenes that display awkward moments, such as finding the right words to say, and really hitting home as it shows Alex's inability to communicate. It all adds to a natural feel. His only escapism is heading over to the skate park known as "paranoid park," watching everyone skate and even skating himself (he's no pro, by the by). These scenes are filmed very dream-like. Pretentious much? Maybe, but I didn't mind 'em. It offered Alex a brief moment to just forget about shit, as for the audience.

Again, the ending is rather abrupt... the kind of abruptness that ruined Broken Flowers (or No Country for Old Men for some folk). Yet, it doesn't ruin Paranoid Park as much. Then again, what else is there once Alex finishes writing his story? Speculation... although it left me with a cold feeling. 'Tis a rather bleak film, but one that captured a culture perfectly. Paranoid Park is this generation's Rebel Without a Cause... oh, and it's one of the year's best films.

The first film to start off the on-coming list of 2008's summer blockbuster season and superhero movies to come (Hellboy, Batman, Hulk, Hancock, sheesh!). Iron Man is pretty badass, headed by a handful of Hollyweird's top A-list actors and a director with quite a colorful background (from penning Swingers, to directing Elf, to Zathura). Certainly a big surprise to come along this rather lacking year, and the best Marvel adaptation since Spider-Man 2... has it been that long since there was a decent Marvel flick, especially one that warranted an immediate second viewing (which took place the next day)?? Y'know when I last did something like that? When the first Spider-Man was released. But after enduring shit like Ghost Rider, the Fantastic Four (I never watched the sequel), Elektra, and two crappy sequels to otherwise fine superhero franchises (Spidey and the mutants), not to mention a lame-ass jumper and the return of a certain man of steel, Man of Iron, I mean, Iron Man is Marvel's newest marvel (hardy har har, lame, I know). Perhaps I needed a second view just to confirm. So... yeah, maybe I am gonna become an Iron Man groupie, but that remains to be seen in the unforseeable future.

Gone is the questionable casting decision I held beforehand (Downey in the titular role), because Downey makes the character Tony Stark with his non-stop wit and humor, but also moments of maturity. Kinda like Marvel's answer to Batman, what with the technology, the brains, the playboy life, and the fact that he's just a man under the suit (only less fucked up). Just an overall comfortable presence he brings to the character. To his side is the loveable Gwenyth Paltrow, who manages to shine brighter than even Katie Holmes in Batman Begins; Terrence Howard is a bit underused and pushed to the side, but his character does hint a better presence in an upcoming sequel (c'mon, you know there's gonna be one); and rounding up the fine cast is Jeff Bridges, playing the sneaky backstabber rather convincingly.

Y'know the story from the trailers, so there's no need to reiterate nor spoil it, but brings up some good points about the irrational shit that plagues our little planet, which disgruntles our obnoxious hero. The bulk of the film is basically Tony Stark working out the bugs in his latest invention after his freak escape from captivity, so like a good origin story, we're given a debriefing. Toss in his attempts at doing good deeds for the greater good, we've got our Iron Man. Sure, his first major "test" (as I'll call it) seems a bit cheesy, the flick doesn't try to go beyond that as it's focused more on story than visual effects and action since style hardly equals substance. But when they do arrive, they're pretty damn cool.

For lack of any further insight, Iron Man is pure entertainment delivered by a great ensemble of actors -- despite my grudges on Terrence Howard's briefness, he still does a good job. The film belongs to its main star, who surprised me in every way possible; he can play a superhero after all, and almost as humane as possible (when you see his sudden change). The story itself is good despite some cheesy moments, minor inconsistencies that bugged me a bit, and an anti-climactic battle -- then again, I could say the cheese helped make the film purely enjoyable. So all in all, Iron Man is the most entertaining Marvel adaptation yet. It's awesome to the max. ^_^

I never watched the TV show (I'm a loser, baby) so I can't say much more than what I got outta the flick. To me, this was like watching one of those Naked Gun movies, but it doesn't strive to be too silly. Its story is well-developed and isn't just a series of random gags. So perhaps, Get Smart is more like a less-serious James Bond flick. Max Smart is just a trouble-maker, but part of the charm was that he wasn't a fully-loaded idiot... perhaps credit goes to Steve Carell, who delivers his comedy with a straight-face most of the time. Even if he is an idiot throughout, he tries to show that his character withholds that notion. Compare him to Steve Martin's portrayal of Jacques Clouseau in The Pink Panther remake... dude's a freakin' idiot there. In Get Smart, Carell balances his characters' antics. He may be a walking calamity, but it doesn't mean he's gonna freeze up or toss-in some random gag when danger approaches. He knows it's real, and handles the situation [kinda] like how Bond would. And with hottie Anne Hathaway by his side, cool gadgets and kickass rides, Max Smart does become a bad mother effer.

Somehow, this movie is a perfect balance of a cool action flick and a funny comedy. Kinda reminds me like how Hot Fuzz turned out from last year. Face it, each action scene here were filmed with such expertise whereas a normal comedy would tend to half-attempt. Take for example, the jumping out of the plane sequence... all I can say is, wow. That entire time, I kept thinking about how real it looked, I fucking swear. That's the kind of craftsmanship that would make Michael Bay blush with envy.

Aside from Carell's skills at work, the others do a fine job. Anne Hathaway (as Agent 99) shows that's she's no pushover nor just sleazy eye-candy, she'll kick your ass, and she shows some depth with her character. Along with Carell, both showed great buddy chemistry; the romance was kinda sweet. Alan Arkin (as the Chief) is funny and cool. Dwayne Johnson is... well, Dwayne Johnson, and it's good to see him back in action flicks.

Although the film seems silly, I must say once again: it's funny, and it's totally badass. Makes me wanna watch the TV show it's based on... quite an unexpected surprise. One of the year's funniest flicks.

"If we can hit that bull's eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!" - Zapp Branigan (somehow, I found this fitting)

One of the year's underrated yet entertaining flicks. I must say, this is perhaps the best heist flick since Ocean's Eleven (the Clooney remake, mind you). Don't let the horrid DVD artwork turn you off nor the film's lame title. The simple title, and the film's 'vintage' onesheet poster says a lot. While the film doesn't necessarily have a retro feel, per say, it does however employ a more simple approach to the characters' methods as opposed to the costly schemes of the Ocean's gang, or cool getaway cars Marky Mark's goons drive in The Italian Job remake. Part of the fun with The Bank Job is, firstly, it's allegedly based on a true story, and secondly, the robbers run into more than they bargained for that sprouts a wave of consequences, and simultaneously, advantages. It always manages to be captivating and thrilling.

The plot is relatively straight-forward; with a title like The Bank Job what more is there? I'm up for a cheap-thrill a heist flick tends to go for, but this film settles on a bare-bones approach, which I thought was more rewarding than Ocean investing in some big rig that digs underground. Terry Leather (Statham) and his circle dig the ol' fashioned way to get to the jackpot: a wad of bills, and a whole lot of something else...

The other greatness of this film are the characters; never cocky, suave, hip, nor perfect. They're all ordinary joes, yet rich with a life of their own and basic human errors. Sure, a few are tossed off to the usual one-dimensional token roles, but for the majority, we come to care for 'em. Jason Statham shines the most. Although typically a B-movie action star, he does manage to shake that image from time to time as he does here. As Terry, he's still kicking ass, but having street smarts as opposed to a well-trained profession. He's a guy barely squeaking by with a bare-minimum job and trying to support his family. Not so much versatile, but when he needs to act, he can pull it off. To his side is the underrated Saffron Burrows as the old flame/ex-model Martine, who also proposes the plan yet is way in over her head herself when involved with the sinister mastermind Tim Everett (Richard Lintern). I don't wanna delve deeper into the other characters 'cause there are a lot, and while the flick doesn't fully flesh out all, each still hold a distinct persona and create a warm (or sinister) presence. Overall, the film's two main stars Statham and Burrows deliver.

As a whole, The Bank Job ain't pure eye-candy nor pointless Hollywood drivel, it's grade-A action thriller that hardly ever goes over-the-top to satisfy the adrenaline-rushed crowd. It takes its time, yet moves at a fast pace. The Bank Job delivers more then you anticipated, so until then, you're at the edge of your seat. Great flick, and one of the best movies of 2008.

Ever notice sometimes number two seem to exceed expectations? Look at these fine examples: X2: X-Men United, Spider-Man 2, Blade II (also directed by del Toro), Superman II, and most likely the upcoming Dark Knight. Now, Hellboy II: The Golden Army just about joins the ranks. This is a twisted labyrinth of fantasy, comic-book, small romance, but most of all, great story-telling fueled by director Guillermo del Toro's warped imagination. It's like wandering into the alternate universe of Star Wars... or a sequel to Pan's Labyrinth.

Now the special effects and creature designs will receive the most admiration. It's a wonder as to what goes on in Guillermo del Toro's head...? Most are such bizarre concoctions yet are dazzling to look at. Take a look at the film's opening, which shows Prof. Bruttenholm (John Hurt) reading a story to a young Hellboy; love it or hate it, I'm glad del Toro decided to roam around the realm of fantasy. Curious it always is, and looking at how the young Hellboy envisions the Golden Army story unfolds just like a child's wandering imagination (his glimpse of the outside world was a puppet show, so it's natural he interprets the story through puppets). The creativity soon expands further as the film moves along. The creatures are weird and bizarre, like failed medical experiments... but even a few display that hint of originality and even subtle genuine beauty, like the Angel of Death.

Anyway, that seems like praise for just one small part of the flick. What about the Golden Army plot? Rather brute force meant to kill off mankind due to some tossed-in pro-environmental concoction... hey, I'm just as shocked as you are/were. It serves a purpose to further the notion that we humans are just a bunch of assholes, and why should other forces beyond our comprehension give a damn? Rest assured, it's a fable that expands and entrances with rival (yet, linked) siblings Prince Nuada (a cool, creepy Luke Goss) and Princess Nuala (played very sweet by Anna Walton), further enriched by the depth given to each main character (Abe and Liz get their fairshare this time), humor from start to finish, and totally badass action sequences. This is one badass film!

In some minor subplots, Hellboy wishes to be normal like any ol' person. Heck, he acts pretty normal; has a sailor mouth, drinks cheap Mexican beer, loves fine Cuban cigars... just his grotesque appearance (not just his, but the others) instills fear and hate into the simpleton human, even if he appears to be a caring dude. Plus, he's facing some dispute with his woman Liz (Selma Blair, who's underrated as an actress). Abe (Doug Jones) is a total pimp in this movie, and newbie bio-man Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) is the show-stealer. The great thing about all four leads is how they are most comfortable with themselves and around others. Hell, Ron Pearlman is dedicated to his role that he turned down the role of Piccolo in the upcoming Dragonball Z movie.

The plot could've been handled better (the climax is a bit ho-hum, but saved by kickass action sequences, and an ending that's for the ages), but the characters are the main attraction. Del Toro gives so much depth to these characters with even the most simplest of themes. Yeah yeah, the whole "love" schtick is cheesy even for a movie of this caliber (ie: high-octane, adrenaline fueled, balls-out, hilarious action picture), it just shows how much 'love' means to these characters and what they'll do for it. Rest assured that this is an action movie... with fantasy elements tossed in... and it's a damn fine piece of entertainment.

Guillermo del Toro had allegedly passed chances of directing Halo, I Am Legend, One Missed Call (aren't we glad del Toro passed on this?), and even Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince to make this film. His heart was dead set on making the Hellboy sequel as perfect as he could, even if he probably could've made a cool Halo flick, or give Harry Potter the much-needed win after the disappointing Order of the Phoenix. It does show in this film for all reasons stated above (and then some). Not quite a masterpiece, but dammit, it does come close. One of the summer's best. ^_^

Huh! I didn't expect to like this movie so much... wonderful adaptation that finally gets it right when it comes to Dr. Seuss. While Horton Hears a Who! may seem stretched out for the sake of it being a full-length feature flick, it's got enough material to establish characters, story, and humor by the bucket load. It's about time this slow-moving year finally picks up. Now, Horton might not be the next successor to Ratatouille, it is however the most fun, enjoyable, and hilarious film to be released so far this year. That doesn't say much, but read on.

It's the first Dr. Seuss big-screen adaptation that truly captures the wild imagination and great storytelling of the classic book (and then some). They don't bludgeon the flick with cruel/creepy dreck that passes as humor, nor add excessive subplots that depart from its original source and hinder the message. I don't claim to be a Seuss expert (nor fan), I do find his stuff intriguing. Watching Horton's adventures unfold had a profound effect on my viewing time. Aside from all the hilarious gags, the flick was one of the few of its kind (animation) to really take me aback to fond childhood imagery, wonder, and amazement -- The colorful environment, the rampant childlike antics of our lovable pachyderm, the oddball humor that never goes overboard, the moral subtexts... my mind was racing around, posing a bunch of "What if...?" questions that I hadn't thought about in a long while, and simply dazzled by it all. Seuss had such a kickass imagination in the same league as Bill Watterson, but instead of being [too] morose, he thinks just like a child and faithfully inks those ideals to paper. Results are pretty effing amazing, and 20th Century Fox had the right idea to animate this flick. Perhaps that's how Seuss adaptations should've been handled before; and they have with the classic Chuck Jones specials.

The humor is persistent, out-of-the-ordinary, and flippin' hilarious. I know they're just the backbone to stretching out a 40-ish minute book to average movie-length, and there are other added characters and very minor subplots to make it all possible, they still made the flick enjoyable. And for once, the message/morale is made loud and clear like the classic "YOPP!" climax. It's a touching and sweet moment.

Overall, it's a flippin' funny as hell flick with a gigantic brain. If this doesn't tickle your funny bone nor give your brain an exercise, I dunno what more you could ask for.

I think the major downside is the film's presentation. Well, it's made by an idiot film student who must shoot every damned scene, even if it means putting a friend or two in danger or on the spot after life-altering events had just taken place. And since this is a movie within a movie (which is called The Death of Death), it's handled well to splice in stock footage of the outside world's ensuing chaos, but it could've done without the dark, ominous music. I know one of the characters made the point of its placement to "scare us" and to "wake us up," but it's just a bit too much.

The whole point-of-view approach is nice, like they are making a documentary that ends with a spine-chilling conclusion, but y'know it still has its flaws: the persistent thought of wishing they'd put down the damn camera and save their lives or others'. I know Romero had a message to go along with this set-up, it's a bit hard to grapple with sometimes.

The acting is so-so. Expect the cheese to come into fruition, especially with some corny/bad dialogue (oh come on, even past Dead movies had their share).

But you know what? I love this movie despite the aforementioned complaints. For one, I love that it did everything Untraceable failed to do, and then some. But mostly, I loved it for its ever so hard-hitting message concerning media, technology, and us pitiful humans as a whole. Sometimes it's garbled, repeated ad nauseum, and/or too obvious that it becomes absurd, but that's just how a documentary would be handled by an ensemble of amateurs, albeit exaggerated just a bit. It's cheesy, it's fun, it's got zombies and a message that'd be one for the ages to ponder. I might be a bit too generous with the rating, but oh well. I enjoy moments when filmmakers can achieve more than meets the eye, and Diary of the Dead is just that.

Okay, the movie does live up to its potential. Maybe the humor is a tad more lowbrow and crude as opposed to the near-brilliant Forgetting Sarah Marshall from earlier this year... but dammit, this film totally shits on the lame, disappointing Harold and Kumar sequel. Seriously! Harold and Kumar got served.

Will type s'more laters... :p

I swear, Spielberg and Lucas must be Hollywood's two biggest kids. In this age of resurrecting old relics like John McClane, Rocky Balboa, John Rambo, the Terminator, and some other dudes I may have missed, I guess it was time for Indy Jones to join the line-up (soon to follow are Agents Scully and Mulder, FBI).

We've all probably seen this movie, so therefore, what I'd say is pretty much useless. I'll keep it short for shortness sake. This movie is badass. Sure, it's cheesy as hell (c'mon! Even the other films were!), the story is far-fetched even for an Indiana Jones story, but like a good Spielberg blockbuster we have to expect some over-the-top entertainment... and like a good Indiana Jones story, we gotta expect some interesting stories. The action is corny and kinda marred by excessive CGI, but fuck it. The sequences were still fun to watch. Kinda makes you feel like a big kid. Maybe that was just me since I'm a fan of the Indy series.

I was bummed that Sean Connery couldn't reprise his fatherly role since he's enjoying retirement too much, but Ford made it all better with a remark that went along the lines of him being old enough to play his father. That's how badass Harrison Ford is, and always will be. Even though in the past few years he's been held back as being a wuss, it's great to see him shed off that fatherly image and become that snarky wise-ass that made everyone go head-over-heels for. Certainly lives up to that line, "It's not the years, it's the mileage." Cate Blanchette is back as a woman (haha, couldn't resist), yet as transcendent as ever before. Added to the ensemble, Shia LaBeouf as the greaser sidekick, and back from the past is the lovely Karen Allen, who is still as lovely as ever before. Minor additions were Ray Winstone (good comeback after the painfully corny Fool's Gold), John Hurt being the mysterious know-it-all academic, and Jim Broadbent in a role meant to replace the late Denholm Elliot, who played Dr. Marcus Brody in the previous flicks (specifically, the ones with the Nazis).

The story of the crystal skulls is intersting enough that warrants discussion despite it being a bit far-fetched for a guy better known to go after religious artifacts. My brain was going a mile a minute a few times, and I kept wishing I watched that special on the History Channel about the real crystal skulls. Lotta peeps dislike it for the far-fetched plot, saying they shoulda left the franchise alone. I could agree with 'em... Overall, an enjoyable summer popcorn flick. Like what Lucas said, don't expect too much with this film.

This is such a cool flick! Seriously, I was nearly blinded by pure awesomeness! It's a kiddie flick with some martial arts styles tossed into the mix. It's all goofy and whatnot for the children's sake, yet the film retains understanding and respect for the subject at hand. Sure, it takes all the cool shit from a lotta martial arts movies, but I could just as easily say this movie is also an homage not just to the flicks, but perhaps even the whole culture. Quite a lot of homework the filmmakers had to do, I guess. Pure commitment that reveals awesomeness! Aside from that, the voice actors pull off their roles with ease, the animation is great (the opening sequence is totally badass it kinda made me wish the entire film stayed with that style), there's a lotta funny stuff, an underlying positive theme, and a whole lotta ass-whoopin'! Pure entertainment, highly recommended!

Wow... can't believe I never completed my critique on this flick. As stated before, it's a watered down version of Superbad... but y'know what? I enjoyed the hell outta this flick. I laughed my ass off, and that's a helluva lot more than I can say about the Harold and Kumar sequel. I hereby raise my original 3-star rating to 4 stars. If I'm crazy, so be it.

Might type s'more laters... ;-)

This overhyped flick finally arrives, and is just that, but for the most part, it's still a pretty entertaining movie. We know about as much as these characters... which is jack squat. We just sorta kinda know about the characters. All we clamor for is to see the monster, and it delivers the goods when the moments come (I could care less about the whole searching for the girlfriend, but I guess the filmmakers needed some cheap drama). Much of the film is open for speculation, which'll go on until the hype dies. But hey, we can't expect a movie of this style to answer everything, right? A handheld experience, although really spruced up to add loud sound effects that a typical handheld camera could only ever dream of achieving. Oh, and be warned that this movie might cause motion sickness to certain viewers.

A good movie to start off the new year... classic it ain't. After all, what else is there to see in this movie once you finally watched it? Just speculation... and perhaps that'll keep some busy.

A decent superhero flick with some good ideas, but becomes heavily muddled and nearly incoherent during the last act. Kinda like these points were added at the last minute... it made me go, "What the--??" Surely we shouldn't expect such discrepancies, even when the film's screenplay was circulating Hollyweird for over a decade.

What makes Hancock not so bad is the entertainment factor, the performances, the story, and that, despite a few wtf moments, they still carry a tinge of coherence and originality. That's more than what half-assed comic book films could ever achieve. It may be overkill with its radical tone shift as the film draws near the end, it shows an evolution with the character. I'm also glad it touched on minor key points that were briefly noted in PIXAR's The Incredibles, where superheroes face the consequences of their actions. Altogether, that's quite an amazing feat considering the puny 90-minute-ish runtime. Does it make up for a weak finale? That's debatable, but the general outlook is... no. I myself wasn't bugged too much since I thought it provided an interesting twist and new layer to the story and character(s), but yeah, it is a rapid shift.

The trailers are truly misleading, I'll admit that, so if all you're expecting is a drunk superhero, prepare to be flabbergasted. Good and relatively entertaining for the most part, just needed more time to develop a plausible final act.

But hey, it's a much better film than that piece of shit that was Jumper. I know that doesn't say much, at least Hancock has Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, and that little kid, all of whom make characters to care for and bring the film's theme alive (which is cheesy, but is the basic premise of most superhero movies anyway). Fuck Jumper and give Hancock a chance.

What are/were the best films about modern warfare? Off the top of my head, I can think of only three: Three Kings, Black Hawk Down, and even Jarhead. Sad thing is, they're films about a conflict from over ten years ago. Films released nowadays about the war in Iraq are always preachy and falling back to depicting how war is hell, soldiers always thinking why they are there, and the aftermath faced when coming home. We get enough of that from loudmouth lefties and the news.

It's a disheartening reality, I know. Stop-Loss just isn't very different from what we see or read about daily in news headlines... it *tries* to be unique with its title referring to the stop-loss program (involuntary extension of active duty). The term is defined, one character happens to be stop-lossed... and that's the last we ever hear about the subject. The rest of the film revolves around a circle of PTSD-ridden soldiers running amock during their return back to civilian life, and the stop-lossed guy trying to get out of it, going AWOL and all hell breaks loose. His journey clearly has no plan, driving here to there, along with one of his buddies' girlfriend -- you'd think something would develop from this scenario, but hardly does in the end. And hardly anything ever develops from the flick. The ending is like a "Wah..." moment for me. There's hardly any clarity or coherence to a lot of actions taking place, but I don't wanna go into detail...

There are some interesting parts, like the flashbacks, opening scene, some of the reality depicted, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. Out of all characters, his was the most interesting, probably because it was real and not forced. The guy's got a knack for acting as opposed to just about everybody else in this movie.

Despite some nitpicking, the flick is alright. Remarkable thing is that this is a film that does not completely focus on the Iraq war, but rather the effects of it. And amazingly, it doesn't attempt to be anti-anything ('cept maybe just a little anti-Bush and/or anti stop-loss), it pays respect to its subjects, like it's pro-soldier without being propoganda drivel. It has high admiration for them.

Stop-Loss is a bold move for filmmaker Kimberley Pierce and even MTV productions in that it doesn't try to hide reality. I say it's not anything new, which holds true to some extent, but one scene stuck out: when Brandon King (Phillipe) is giving a welcome home speech, describing how overwhelmed he is now that he's home, but takes time trying to find the right words... a fellow officer interrupts him for a simple speech that riles up the crowd who favor winning over anything else. The blinders that these people wear ("USA! USA!"), and the things we take for granted (soldiers)... pfft! That's the harsher reality. Sadly, this flick doesn't attempt to push any newer ground, and I wished it would've, considering Pierce's previous film Boys Don't Cry stepped past that line. But maybe MTV hindered her true vision... that, or her editor or screenplay she worked with. It's a messy film that has some interesting topics...

It's not necessarily the slap-stick kinda comedy we'd expect from watching the otherwise hilarious trailer. Surely everyone's favorite would be Jack Black and Mos Def's reenactment of Ghostbusters. Simply put, this is a movie for the people that love movies; the thrill of watching movies, and the fun of creating them. Or maybe something else...

The film plays out almost like a fantasy. You'd probably pick that up since this flick comes from Michel Gondry, best known for bringing Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The guy probably got a bit nostalgic one day looking at his old VHS collection, and decided to somehow incorporate it into contemporary times, or a small world where everybody lives under a rock. I could understand a failing vinyl store (like in High Fidelity), but VHS seems a bit too far. Does that matter? Heck no. In this world, razor-sharp images still can't hide crap. These people define quality in their own twisted way, and it works. They appreciate the simplicity and do-it-yourself attitude. To them, this is quality. Forget fancy computer-editing software and DVDs... but this is only a small part of the film.

A minor problem is the weak plot, overlooked by viewers' demand for the reenacted movies (or "sweded" movies, as they're called), and uneven in what it wants to present; the film seems presented as a series of acts or plays, each that serve a small purpose to only drive the viewer to its rather heartwarming conclusion. Each act never go further than they're supposed to, and although they are linked, minor inconsistencies come about and a viewer could feel cheated. The child-like innocence of these characters (not just the headlining stars) lay the heart of the film. Essentially, it's just a movie about a bonding community, and perhaps even an ode to independent filmmaking.

Gondry seems to just wanna be weird for weirdness' sake, he does bring a nostalgic charm to the screen. A good contemporary fantasy that probably could've done better had it focused on a better plot. I still appreciate the film for its originality, its humor, and that it's a minor feel-good flick.

Y'know what's kinda cool but more sad? I watched this movie by my lonesome and had the whole auditorium to myself. But y'know what? It's pretty effin' cool just 'cause I got to experience that. As for the movie itself... hell, I enjoyed it.

Will type s'more laters... :p

I liked how Maxim magazine described The Incredible Hulk as being every indie fanboys' wet dream. Why? Because it has Edward Norton and Tim Roth in battle, that's why!

Just after five years, the studio already felt the need to reboot this green dude's big screen presence. Oh man, I remember like it was yesterday I watched Ang Lee's Hulk for the first time. My companion said, "This is boring," but I reassured that it would get better (or, I hoped it would). Visually, I thought it was good, especially them comic-panels. Story-wise, I felt was intriguing enough. Yeah, it did run long, the dog fight should've been something else, but I still defended it. Maybe if I were to look at it now, I might think of it less good than before (that 4.5 star-rating of mine there will more than likely be lowered).

Now that the fans' voices were heard, they got what they wanted: shit blown up like a Michael Bay fiasco. Most of the time, I didn't feel the sequences were necessary, and at times, my mind was boggling with questions of "why?" Why would Tim Roth want more power? All he does is smash shit up despite knowing of Banner's incapacitation. Why would the William Hurt general want a bunch of Hulk-like soldiers running at his disposal when it's clearly shown that such a force could hardly be contained? Such a question is still prevalent during the drip of blood at the beginning... it seemed like something would develop from that "thrilling" ordeal, but it never goes beyond another Stan Lee cameo (which was kinda funny). Maybe I'm just looking too deep into something... is that a bad thing, especially for a mere superhero flick? There are other questions, but they might be spoilers... as if I hadn't spoiled the film enough. But you know what was the worst part is? This movie's trailer... it practically gave away the ENTIRE MOVIE!!! ^_^

I would expect more depth with this film, especially since bad mother fucker Edward Norton stars. Perhaps there was, but was cut out for time-restraints... at least that's the rumor; they also say this butchering prompted Norton to not bother with promoting this film.

Putting logics aside, I must admit, this film kept me entertained from start to finish. It's a cheesy film, things are forced and cliche, but I guess that was always a part of the Hulk's universe as Marvel intended (ex: "Hulk smash!"). I can also add that each actor seemed to fit their roles perfect, even Liv Tyler. As much as Jennifer Connelly appears to be a superactress, Tyler at least seemed to care for Bruce. Norton is great, as usual... hell, he could star in crap, and it'd be gold (like Death to Smoochy). Roth captures the madman persona, and it's a great comeback after his rather blah role in Funny Games, even if it appears to not be much. Hurt is stuck in a one-dimensional role, but he still manages to disappear into his character (at times, I forgot that it's William Hurt).

Overall, this movie ain't so bad. It's pure entertainment, and doesn't try to take itself seriously like Ang Lee's Hulk. I must admit, the Hulk was always a lame character to me. One reason I might've like Ang Lee's Hulk was that it tried to make the guy interesting... for The Incredible Hulk, they mostly rush through the origin in the opening credit sequence, but afterwards and even in Banner's exile, vague details and few background was still compelling enough.

Rambo's back, and he's doin' alright.

[might type s'more laters]

I have a complaint: the movie is way too fuckin' long. It damn near pushes 2 and a half hours! My ass is still trying to recover. So the "epic length of epic proportions reserved for epic films" may be hell for the few dudes found sitting in an auditorium to endure the ultimate chick flick to end all chick flicks (how I wish that would be true). But much to my dismal surprise, I wound up... actually being somewhat quite pleased with the film. This coming from a guy who could barely watch the TV show (never finished one episode).

That's not without its flaws. Clothes, shoes, fashion shows, the length!! But I'll type more later... my head hurts, and I have the need to watch something like High Fidelity and/or Swingers, just to even things a bit... ^_^

A film that uses the "based on true events" tagline to lure unsuspecting audiences. It started off good, but dives into so many cliches it irks me that it becomes just another horror flick. I gotta admit, the introduction was intriguing enough, and some of the suspense was effective.

I'll type some shit later (maybe)... ^_^

Harmless amusement. It ain't cool like Danny Ocean's trips or Spike Lee's Inside Man, it's a fun-natured film with such adorable lead actresses... but I just gotta wonder if Katie Holmes passed up The Dark Knight to star in this. Anywho, 'tis harmless escapism that did what it could at least do: entertain. Worth my time. :p

A funny movie that tries to stick in some "drama" and a subplot that should've underwent more development or be excised completely (the Woody Harrelson and his girl story). Well, I'm not sure what else I can say about this... it's a Will Ferrall comedy. Take it for what it is.

Why does Matthew McConaughey continue to star in trash like this? I think Matt Damon's hilarious McConaughey imitation sums up his career now ("I think this is a good time to take off my shirt.")

Well, Fool's Gold pairs the guy back with Kate Hudson, the two playing divorcees (from each other) on a treasure hunt, which has a backstory too complicated to understand, but y'know there's fuckin' treasure anyway so why bother with such a lengthy explanation? As usual, there are baddies out to get it (a rapper and his henchmen).

Somehow this film managed to reel in Donald Sutherland and Ray Winstone (last seen in The Departed playing Mr. French). Questionable their appearances seem, at least they made the movie a tad tolerable to watch. Aside from that, following predictable plot set-ups and storyline, a few cheap laughs and cringe-worthy scenes and acting... well, Fool's Gold definately isn't as bad as Jumper, but it ain't that great either. Fool's Gold isn't trash, per say... maybe it's the sorta kinda guilty pleasure trash. Just light-hearted fun with quite a few missteps. Besides, I did tend to chuckle a few times... :p

(A small revisit)

Okay, it's not as bad as I said before, notably expressed with a low star-rating, but everything said before remains, with a few minor changes and additions.

Far from the worst film ever, but it's, I guess you could say, a guilty pleasure. Probably something to pass the time. The math stuff were interesting, but the story itself... meh, it's easily predictable, and yet still entertaining with a young hip cast who I don't know from other works (aside from Kate Bosworth) alongside big names like Kevin Spacey, who could somehow make the worst movies still a tad bearable, and a somewhat badass Lawrence Fishbourne -- he would've been more badass if the flick had enough balls to at least tiptoe around Martin Scorsese territory. The threats and tension are pretty much nonexistent in this universe where everybody easily forgives.

Yet when watching, I couldn't help but be even the slightest interested and gripped. The film is formulaic, sure, but it's all in good fun. Like I said earlier, it's a guilty pleasure. ^_^