The Year 2008

I'm not surprised. When I heard the whole gang from Batman Begins was coming back for a sequel, I thought we were definitely going to, at least, get a good movie. Never would have anyone thought a couple years ago that, heck a couple months ago that a superhero movie would become one of the greatest film phenomenon's of the decade and perhaps of all time. Speaking comic heroes wise, I've never been a big fan of how the DC characters (Superman, Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman etc.) have been brought to the big screen. I've never been a big fan of the Superman films, until Richard Donner's cut of Superman 2 came out, they've all been cheesy in a lame and forgettable way, especially Superman Returns. Same goes for the original Batman films when Tim Burton decided to leave the directors chair to that "so-called" filmmaker Joel Schumacher, who gave us some of the worst crap in superhero movie history, unfortunately in Batman's name. What was up with those nipples and terrible looking Batmobile? And Val Kilmer, what the @#$%? But it?s nice now that the days of bad Schwarzenegger one liners and those nipple bearing suits are behind us, like a dark period in history that is looked at as a lesson for the Batman film saga. Batman Begins changed that all for me in 2005, when I was only a fan of the Marvel Comics characters, but thanks to director Christopher Nolan, who's one of the best out there, I've come to respect one of DC's characters, the one that deserves the spotlight it's gotten yet again.

This year has been terrific for superhero flicks no doubt, with the huge acclaim and praise for Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, the list goes on. What happens when you're compared to the Dark Knight? Well, let's just say that Hulk kind of got killed, as did Iron Man and Hellboy, but more so. Hancock doesn't even deserve to be mentioned any where near The Dark Knight's name, or even being in the top 5 in the box office with it, I still can't understand why so many people are seeing this film over masterpieces like Wall-E and great movies like Hellboy 2. The Dark Knight isn't a film that can be described by one word, and few words do it barely any justice. If you haven't noticed yet, it's pretty big, the scope of it and the amount of talk circulating around it. I haven?t seen so many people at an opening night since Spider-Man 3 and I felt it necessary to see it again on the next day, now I've finally got my opinion straight.

There was a prediction that the only big reason why The Dark Knight was going to be big, Heath Ledger was the Joker and Heath Ledger is no longer with us. Even if Ledger wasn't dead when this film was released, his performance would still be considered Oscar worthy and this movie, one of the biggest hits of the 21st century. We get a major package with The Dark Knight, more than what we bargained for. While some may consider this to be just a superhero film, it's actually one of the greatest crime dramas I've ever seen, joining the ranks of Brian De Palma's The Untouchables and Martin Scorsese' The Departed. We have a clever and smart storyline that entwines multiple storylines into a pretty much perfect and complex narrative that'll make you forget this is some superhero film we're used to seeing every summer. It blends numerous emotions that allow us to feel equally for every character even the disturbingly evil ones that slaughter countless innocents almost every scene they're in. And I like the fact that this movie doesn't focus primarily on Batman a.k.a. Bruce Wayne , but gives all the main characters the attention they so rightly deserve from beginning to end. Like I said, it's one of the most fantastic crime films I've ever seen, with so many twists and turns that bring you closer to a dark and satisfying climax we never expected. Christopher Nolan's style also provides a lot of eye candy, the black liquorish kind, that keeps it from going to a soft side that Batman films should never amount to. He basically improves his vision from Batman Begins and we all know how to terrific that was. The script he co-wrote with his brother also contains some amazing liners that that'll send chills down your spine. It's a big part of what makes The Joker and Harvey Dent the fascinating characters they are. Action lovers are also going to pleased with the fact that The Dark Knight has some fantastic action without the major special effects pouring over what?s important, the story. It's nothing groundbreaking, but it?s edge of your seat good. Nolan is a director of class and feels the need to make it look as natural as possible and that?s something you don't get with big names like Spielberg anymore.


What I've also noticed about most of the superhero films this year, is that they contain actually deep, near Oscar worthy performances that pretty much make the movie. Iron Man was a good case of that, Robert Downey Jr. took his superhero role and crafted it into something fun and serious at the same time. In The Dark Knight, we have a whole bunch of Oscar worthy performances and near Oscar worthy performances , some attract more attention than others, but in this case that's a good thing. Christian Bale dons his much improved bat suit, nipple free and does a very good job yet again. While an aspect of his portrayal is a little off in my opinion, he makes Batman the guy we love to watch kick butt, in the name of vigilante justice. George Clooney and Val Kilmer, go back and watch your short lived Batman careers and cry at the fact that you thought you could be the dark knight. Michael Keaton, you're cool, Batman didn?t suck when you were around. We've got a bunch of the gang back too, Michael Caine as good ol' Alfred serving Bruce Wayne tea and some of his own chicken soup for the soul, which we always have loved to hear. Morgan Freeman is back as well, with a little more screen time and good character moments Lucius brought us in Begins. Gary Oldman's back as Lt. Gordon and boy do they do some pretty intense stuff with his character. I hated the fat, goofy version of him in the originals, there was no depth or serious edge to the actual character, but Begins completely renewed him to another level and now we have a Gordon that isn't stuffing down with donuts and getting seduced by a weird looking Poison Ivy. We got a few newcomers here too, one portraying a character from Begins. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes the torch from Katie Holmes on playing the character of Rachel and does a terrific job at doing it, better than Holmes in fact. Sometimes I didn't feel like I was watching the same character, but it worked out in the end, Gyllenhaal coming out as the winner. One performance in particular that seems to have been overshadowed by the Joker is Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face. Eckhart gives a deep, complex and astonishing individual that completely stands out on his own. The metamorphosis of Dent is perfectly placed and we feel so much for him by the end. In sense, he?s the most relatable, an example of what can happen to all of us. It's unfortunate that isn?t praised as much as it should, it?s a near equal to Ledger?s performance in the end.

You're going to notice this paragraph is very short compared to the others, it's the section where I make note of the films flaws. Christian Bale sounds like he's choking on his dialogue sometimes and the film feels too stretched at a minute long point. I'm done.

Now I thought this deserved recognition on its own, Heath Ledger as The Joker. This is it, the final and defining performance of his short lived career, The Dark Knight brings forth his final full performance for us all too see and all I can say is, he saved the best for last. And that's actually quite the comforting thing to say about this guy and makes this film all the more memorable. I must admit, I wasn't that big of a Heath Ledger fan before and maybe saw only two movies of his career, but nothing he did never moved me, except many say he did excellent in Brokeback Mountain, in which he was nominated for the Oscar the academy is now regretting in not giving him it. The academy has another opportunity to nominate the guy again, death doesn't stop that fact, it has been done before and they can do it again. Ledger's Joker is fierce, disturbing and creepy. He acts like a spawn of the guy in A Clockwork Orange and makes Jack Nicholson's Joker look like, well, a clown. This Joker is non stop with the clever "crap yourself" creepy lines and some little touches that make him believable. He's also a lot more mysterious because they don't completely tell of his origins and that makes the Joker more nerve rattling when you see him do some wicked stuff, both kinds of wicked. When I first heard Ledger was playing the Joker, I wasn't so sure about that, but boy was I wrong. And to tell you the truth, even if Ledger hadn't died, he'd still be getting immediate Oscar buzz because he?s just SO flippin awesome in this movie. It's sad that I became a Heath Ledger fan a little too late, but that's a legacy when you become even more successful when you've passed away. I want to mention something, it contains a minor spoiler so I'll put it in brackets in case you don?t want to hear it, I just found it kind of touching. ( Many of us thought the Joker was going to get killed since they really shouldn't bring him back. Near the end, he was falling to his death, laughing all the way down, but then Batman catches him with his cable wire thingy and everyone starts cheering, a lot. It was amazing, people standing up from their seats clapping at the fact that one of the greatest, most twisted villains we've ever seen just got his life spared, but I believe it's a combination of that we actually love this character and don't want him to die, and we really don't want to see Heath Ledger die in front of us in a way. But I'm happy they did that, as are many other people.) I also convinced my friend, who despises Batman, to see this film. He ended up really liking it, mostly because of Ledger's act. The fact that my friend liked a Batman movie is a miracle, no really it is, so for him and many others, Ledger made this movie. So let's savor this performance as long as we can and wait for the Oscar nomination that the guy truly deserves. Rest In Peace Heath Ledger and thanks for something we'll really remember you for, years, decades, perhaps centuries to come.

The Dark Knight is the best film of the year so far and is yet another history making movie to come out this year, like Wall-E. 2008 has been a wonderful year so far, we're being given actually good summer blockbusters that we want to buy later on. The Dark Knight is the kind that we'll watch again and again in theaters, buy it then watch it again and again. No other superhero besides Spider-Man has had this wonderful of a sequel and calling this movie a superhero movie would be a crime because it's so much more. You've probably seen it already but if you haven't, see it, many times because the unbelievable, quite magical experience The Dark Knight brings forth isn't something we get everyday and the big screen is the best way to go. Until next time, thanks Christopher Nolan for giving us a film many can't forget and will continue to send chills down our spines. Thanks Christian Bale for giving us a Batman we consider cool to watch. And thanks Heath Ledger, for a Joker that gives us so much more than the demented laughs and that crazy makeup.

Pixar has always been known for being the giant on animated movies and the father of modern day animated film, and for good reason. They're not a perfect group, I mean they made Cars, but they've never failed to bring us something new and refreshing, something we're going to watch again and again. But in my opinion, there hasn't been that kind of a brilliant film since The Incredibles. Don't get me wrong, Cars was okay and Ratatouille was a great film, but I didn't feel that same awesome feeling I always got after watching previous Pixar films. Wall-E, I wasn't very excited about, the first preview didn't impress me and I was getting the terrible feeling Pixar was never going to bring that special touch we've come to know from these guys, ever again. A cute animal or in this case a robot, can't really steal the show anymore, we need something powerful and satisfying story wise and would be able to bring that emotional bar higher for the viewers. In the end, I'm happy to say, like Toy Story started something all those years ago, Wall-E has brought another thing, the next step in how animated films should be and will be made.

A long time ago, movies used to rely on the emotion on an actor rather than the words, which was in silent films. The interesting thing about silent film, is that we still got the same powerful message without a thing spoken, Wall-E begins as a silent film, for the most part, there is really no talking. Throughout the entire film there isn't a whole lot of talking, and it isn't needed. The movie runs on the emotions of the characters, their want of life and their want of love. Wall-E is a cute little machine, but he's as human as you and me. And while he doesn't have the features of a human, his feelings are revealed just the same we do. And to have this character showcase the power of a Shakespeare play with just his eyes or goggles, is not only a step up in animation, but a step up in film making in total. And what's also nice is that all of these other robot characters in the film, especially Wall-E's love Eve, can bring powerful performances with nothing but their names said between each other.

The story in Wall-E is amazingly strong and unique, while having I guess a little imperfection, not anything everyone will catch, but I guess I'm a little more critical. We get the ultimate love story between one robot and another, while a story about the human condition. All Wall-E ever wanted was to find someone special and he thinks he found it in Eve. While Eve is all about her objective, Wall-E tries his best to get her attention and does some pretty funny things to do that. Did I mention this film has fantastic humor, and none that would offend the family film lovers. I've noticed over the years that Pixar has hidden some adult things in their films that kids wouldn't understand, but Wall-E doesn't have that because it doesn't need it, the humor is understandable for all types of audiences while sticking with any lame jokes. Pixar has always been good with that, except in Cars. (?He did what in his cup??) I also found that scene in Ratatouille with all the dead rats hanging in the window a little too disturbing for the little ones, especially since they were all made to look cute. Wall-E doesn't have that problem in the slightest, but I can tell you, people WILL cry. Thanks to the amazing power this film just radiates, expect people all around you to be bawling, and maybe you'll be joining them involuntarily. I even overheard the dads crying, so don't feel the urge to hold back your tears, this film is worth it to lose your marchioness over.

Wall-E also talks about our state as human beings right now. We're treating our planet like crap, garbage is everywhere these days and obesity rates are going up. Imagine this being our complete way of life in the future, where the planet is no longer stable for human life and we're confined to these flying beds and our only human interactions is through MSN. Oh and we're all really fat. In Wall-E, the machines do everything for us and we completely have lost all natural human interaction, and come on, we're drinking cupcakes in a cup. It raises some important points, for this could be mankind in the future and that's scary. The Happening, a movie I liked but no one else did, told us about the decline in the bee population and how mother nature can turn on us at any time. It's great that movies these days are delivering alarming facts about our world and it's a good way to get the message across. Movies are supposed to be for escapism, but it's always good to remind us a bit about reality. Wall-E also achieves another emotional impact to the heart, this time really directed to us. I don't want to give it away, but let's just say we learn many things from watching this film.

Wall-E is also a beautiful film to look at. We just saw Kung Fu Panda recently and it blew many away with its fantastic animation. This movie does this and even better too. Though the characters look cartoony, there's a lot of detail put into them. The starts, the spaceships, people are saying there's a lack of good sci-films these days, but Wall-E has changed that. Thanks to that amazing animation, we have something the Star Trek fans will find great, or whatever sci-fi show people watch, it doesn't matter. Each time Pixar does a movie, the animation just gets better and better. I also want to point out about the short film ahead of Wall-E called "Presto"This little film alone was worth the ticket price, it was brilliantly funny and extremely creative, the best Pixar short yet. WORTH THE ADMITION PRICE ALONE!

I only have one complaint about this pretty much perfect film. At one point I was asking: "Where's Wall-E?" He had completely disappeared, the main character. Now I know this was only about 5 minutes but the stories focus kind of traced off there, but eventually we got to see that good ol' bucket of bolts again. That's my only complaint, the movie's perfect otherwise. But if that comment completely threw all interest away, (haha, not likely)go see it for the short film Presto.

I really don't know how Pixar is going to beat this one. I believe the next one is Toy Story 3, but I'm a little against that one being made, just because I thought the second was a good end to it all. Toy Story 2 is still my favorite Pixar film, but let;s just say now The Incredibles got knocked down to third. Wall-E is a technical masterpiece and a film for the ages. While one film that came out this year still beats Wall-E, this will be one of the most beloved characters of all time and considered one of the greatest films century.

Clint Eastwood brings us yet another masterpiece with Changeling. It's beautiful, intriguing, powerful and Angelina Joilie's stellar performance pushes it to true greatness. This is probably Eastwood's best film since Mystic River and serves as a perfect example of every parents worst fear. One of the best of the year and one of the best leading performances of the year.

Perhaps I'm biased, after all, this is one of my favorite superheroes, or this movie just plainly and simply ROCKS!

It wasn't looking good for Marvel movies last year. Back in 2000, the dreams of fans around the world were finally given life with X-Men. That film completely set the bar for what we looked forward to in the coming years. Though it hasn't been a perfect streak, we've still gotten a lot of great films based on the comic book characters from Marvel. Last year wasn't great for Marvel. Ghost Rider wasn't much of a successful, FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer was good but not great and they're best bet, Spider-Man 3, disappointed many. Then we got Iron Man, a movie pretty much controlled by Marvel, which made it more than it possibly could've been, and it ended up being one of the highest rated films of the year by critics and audiences, if not the highest. Then was to come The Incredible Hulk, the underdog of superhero films this year and we all wondered if it could pull it off, doubts quite high. The Hulk back in 2003 was a failure and I still don't know how the hell Ang Lee was given the job to direct that over publicized BS. Now director Louis Leterrier, a guy I'm not a big fan of, decided to refresh the saga with good ol Edward Norton and it's proved to be the perfect duo to save "The Green Goliath's" reputation. It's time to get that bad taste Hulk left you 5 years ago, spit it into the drain where it's supposed to be and get ready for an all new experience that'll put that smile on your face that never came before.

First of all, I can't find anything wrong with this movie, everything works so very well. Iron Man had some problems in my opinion, especially in the lack of action, but Incredible Hulk brings both great action and some powerful moments that the original overplayed way too much, but here it works. I had just scene "You Don't Mess With the Zohan" before this one and that one was severely hurt due to terrible pacing. Incredible Hulk never gives too much or too little and goes smoothly the whole way round. And there's so much that'll geek out the fans through it all.

I didn't mind the original cast of Hulk. Eric Bana did a complex and deep Bruce Banner, Jennifer Conelly as Betty Ross and especially Sam Elliot as General Ross. Those performances were great and suited type of movie it should've been. I like the cast in Incredible Hulk more, because they shape their characters and interactions in a more relaxed, more interesting way. Both Bana and Norton make great Bruce Banners, same with everyone else who have shared each role. Instead of having Banner's father as the villain (whom I disliked in Hulk) is Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, the super-soldier who later becomes the Abomination. This is the ideal bad guy to have in a Hulk movie. Banner's dad was lame as a human and a monster and Nick Nolte's performance didn't help either. But Roth makes more fun of his role and in the end, is much more fun to watch and despise. I really hope they bring the Abomination back for the sequel, he needs more screen time and makes Iron Monger look like a refrigerator. Iron Monger was awesome though, but he's officially toast. The relationship between Bruce and Betty is a very cute one and feels so right when you see the pair together. Bana and Conelly had a little chemistry in the old one, but not enough to make us exactly believe in them. Betty is more supportive to Bruce in this one and WAY more brave. The scenes with Betty and the Hulk are something different, they're actually beautiful. Something that the comic book writers tried to capture for years is caught in just a few minutes. Hulk was ferocious in this one, he wasn't all sappy, looking at moss growing on trees and jumping countless times. He's always in action tearing things apart and never giving up. This is the character we've come to know over the years and it?s nice to see this truly realized. I must say though, there's one thing I actually prefer in the original than in this one. William Hurt plays General Ross in this one and he's much more of a bad guy. Sam Elliot did a better job playing this character, because he brought that soft side Ross was known for having. But that's it, everything else in this version is a lot better.

The story is wonderful in this movie, mainly because it explains so much and entertains at the same time. It's sort of a mix between the television series and the comics and it's blended quite well. The beginning has a style similar to the Bourne movies, Bruce Banner having his epic chase sequence, doing some karate moves and then turning into a monster completely throwing that stuff away. Literally. Still, Banner seems to get the most attention in this flick, but this time, it works a whole lot better. Banner isn't stuck captive in anything awaiting more torment from the army, he's always on the run. There's just enough action and just enough plot to work and manages to give a great line of cameos. You got Lou Ferrigno, Stan Lee, Robert Downey Jr., and even the late Bill Bixby gets a form of a cameo, which is well deserved. Like in Iron Man, there are a lot of little touches that'll geek out the fans, and ready a sequel or the possible "Avengers Movie." It's been great having these little things added to these recent superhero flicks, it makes it feel like you're seeing history brought to life. This movie already reveals who the villain is going to be in the sequel, and let's just say I'm psyched about it.

Action is something the perfect superhero movie needs and man does The Incredible Hulk deliver. The final action scene is unbelievably epic and completely kills all the previous superhero movie fight scenes, except for Spider-Man 2's, nothing has beaten those so far. But yeah, the final fight is jaw-dropping and absolutely memorable. Never have I seen so many cars fly, among other things. Whenever you see the Hulk doing something, you think "Yeah, that?s something the Hulk would do." Special effects wise, this movie isn't state of the art, but it really doesn't hurt the movie as much as you'd think. Hulk looks better in this one and moves more smoothly. It completely takes away most of the attention going towards your thoughts of the special effects. They're good for this movie, sadly though this one will be compared to Iron Man's special effects which I agree are better. But we get to see Hulk a little more in action than we did Iron Man in his movie.

We really have a special film on our hands here, the one that couldn't did it, and very well I might add. It's great for Marvel having two smash hit films this year and both weren't expected to be any good. Just goes to show that there's still a few kicks left for superhero films, when there's the right people on board. There's a nice long summer movie season ahead of us, but I believe that the Incredible Hulk, like Iron Man, will be one of the few movies that'll truly be worth the bucks. So now, with our green old friend being finally done justice, we can sit back, relax and await for that flippin Avengers movie to come and hope they don't screw up that one.

Earlier this year, we got a good look at greatness and power of the U.K. film industry, with the great bank heist flick The Bank Job and the amazingly wonderful comedy Run Fat Boy Run. Both are some of the best films of the year so far and now I'm pleased to tell you about yet another terrific film coming from overseas, and it's the best of them all (this year, so far). Over the years, Hollywood has spent way too much on milking franchises and series? until they're dried up and have ruined the originals. The latest Indiana Jones has shown us that, except that one was great. I guess with films like Meet the Spartans and Santa Clause sequels and such, all inspiration has been lost into making an enjoyable film, in more cases, memorable ones. There's a good possibility that the U.K. may be the saviors of films we actually would care about and after In Bruges, that statements become even more believable.

In Bruges is a work of art for many reasons that are plain to see. It isn't one of those films that takes a deep look to find what's great about it, everything magnificent is plain to see the entire 107 minutes of fun and awe. First of all, the film is entirely set in Bruges, one of the few towns in the world that's kept its medieval architecture intact for so long. Almost every single scene is a thing of beauty, with so much character in it all, it's like some fairy tale land as the movie describes. When there's a good location to film, you get some of the best scenes you can possibly film and this movie takes the town it's set in and takes full of advantage of what's given. Cinematographer Eigil Bryld should get an Oscar nomination for this one, and can't say he deserves the win just yet.

The performances in this film are astonishing, mostly because the actors are given the opportunity to go wacky and have some with their roles. Here, they're acting up a storm that are some of the best of the year so far. Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell were like a perfect match in this movie and on their own, they're just as fantastic. We only get to see Ralph Fiennes for a little bit, but he's brilliant when he?s around. Actually, he's the highlight of the movie because he has and many times before, played a fun bad guy. Don't get me wrong though, Colin Farrell are great as well and bring perhaps their strongest performances. I could really feel the raw emotion Farrell's character had and never felt like anything was being pushed too forcefully. The friendship between Gleeson and Farrell is a funny, yet believable one and keeps the film entertaining through out. I found the romance (Farrell and Clémence Poésy)
in this movie not as interesting as the rest, I felt nothing came out of it. Sure it helped the story go along but in the end, not even the strong performance by Poesy and her chemistry with Farrell could make it worth while. Some of the greatest scenes have the two main guys, Poesy and Jordan Prentice, the little person, talking about random things while snorting cocaine. It never gets old. I also love how the characters react to American tourists . It's so freaking funny in that scene when Farrell is recommending that the overweight American tourists don't go into the tower because they wouldn't fit. And when he punches an American at a restaurant and later finds out he was Canadian and goes "That was a Canadian? Sh**!", there's never a dull moment.

Later on, I found out this was writer/director Martin McDonagh?s first full length film, his first film was a short called "Six Shooter" that got him an Oscar. I can see this guy years from now with a few Oscars in his trophy case for writing and directing. His screenplay is clever, filled with snappy and clever dialogue and there's simply never a dull moment to be found. He also knows how to use the actors and sets and perfectly combines them to make an incredible scene. I look forward to seeing more from this filmmaker, he's a master in the making.

The Bank Job, Run Fat Boy Run and now In Bruges, we're really getting great things from overseas. I'm going to keep a closer eye on these movies from that area, they're better than most of the complete crap Hollywood puts out. Alone, In Bruges is a masterpiece that may offend some people, but will entertain most with its charm, solid acting and the beautiful town it was filmed in. Apparently it's almost on DVD, so please go check it out. You can't go wrong with something both critics and audiences world wide have being raving about and will continue to for a while. Watch first. Ask questions later.

Usually with the Coen brothers, you watch one of their films and you have a hard time describing what you just saw. Sure, there are occasions where you can boast your true feelings of how much you loved Intolerable Cruelty, or on how much you despised The Lady Killers. But then there's the ones that completely stun us, mesmerize all attention and stick into our vast minds for years and decades to come. Take No Country For Old Men, my favorite film from the brothers, after I saw it for the very first time, I was speechless, couldn't quite grasp what was appropriate enough to justify the experience I just had. Now after watching it nearly a dozen times, I know what to say, but leave a blank page when trying to write what my brain just concocted. An excellent film needs no words to describe it, if it gets the job done, it explains itself loud and clear. Burn After Reading is one I thought I knew what my opinions were on it right after seeing it, but it kept on changing, I ended up with an array of mixed feelings that couldn't be shaken off. I completely loved it, but to what extent, troubled me. Thought about it, thought about it, then saw something a little more simple called Righteous Kill, then thought about it some more. All of a sudden, it came to me, the true brilliance finally hit me in the face and realized: "Burn After Reading is f%*$ing BRILLIANT!" It's definitely not another No Country, but falls along the lines of Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou?. And let me tell you, that's an amazing line.

I believe Heath Ledger will reign as the best bet for an Oscar-nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but I got a feeling there's some other worthy adversaries out there for the actor awards in total. This ensemble of a cast is point perfect, not a fault in choice whatsoever. George Clooney, Francis McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, J.K. Simmons, Richard Jenkins and the surprisingly award worthy Brad Pitt, are all amazing and, well, amazing. Every single one of them plays everything with such stupidity, yet a stupidity with grace, admirable actually. These actors are performers of class, not a bunch of cheap tricks like Will Ferrell or present day Robin Williams, when they act stupid, which is all the time, they nail it without a fault or a hiccup. I haven't seen such well played stupidity since Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump, but here, they aren't even retarded, they're just so flippin stupid. Does it make any sense claiming it as a smart kind of stupid, like you could actually picture these people living next door or working at the local workout facility, or CIA department? It appeared that way to me the entire time, because the cast is filled with true artist who know how to capture a pure and balanced essence of a character and how far they can go with that. I remember Richard Corliss saying the movie left him feeling stupid, but he should check if he wasn't stupid to begin with, because after watching Burn After Reading, I felt smart and glad that I have some form of intelligence to live off. Yes, the characters are stupid, but also loveable, so loveable it hurts you personally when something 'bad' happens to them. It gets you thinking, what would you do in a situation like that, or around people like that. I'd like to quickly give props to Brad Pitt in particular, his performance may very well be his ticket to another Oscar nomination. I bet this part was actually written for him and that ended up working out very well in the end, perhaps a little too well, but you should go check this out immediately so I don't have to tell you myself on what that means.

The Coen brothers are a brilliant duo when it comes to writing, because they have a unique approach to what they create. Burn After Reading is one of their original works, and though No Country For Old Men was based on a novel, I still think the Coens are better at creating than adapting, look at The Ladykillers in this aspect. That flick was a rip off of many things, something that should've been avoided by those guys to begin with, you simply can't beat the original. Burn After Reading is not only unique, but a new style towards the spy genre, or dark comedy genre. This one's literally one of the funniest films of the year, truly gives a laugh a second, or every second , like In Bruges, but you have to have a taste towards these kind of films. You know there's going to be humor, twisted humor and the occasional element or scene that you don't see in a comedy at all. This is a Coen Brothers film, when you see something from their vision, its different and sometimes uncalled for, so with this movie, don't expect anything different. The story is immensely solid with the smart and stupid combo, and the twists they make aren't all that astonishing, which actually makes them more astonishing, because you were expecting the unexpected, and well, I guess that still happens in a less intense form. Once this take on the material didn't work with me at first along with most of the audience. I'm not going to tell you what it is, but I'm warning you. It's in the middle of the movie and it was like a shot to the kidney, even to the heart. I swear my friends and I were blank face for most of the movie after that, but it eventually wore off, but boy, it was uncalled for and it left me depressed for a while. But you know what's even sadder about it, it was cool, very cool, it hurts to say that but it was, then later I realized that all in all, it was a brilliant move and triggered what I thought about the rest of the film. Interestingly enough, Burn After Reading leaves you with a solid moral at the end that even religious people would appreciate and find appropriate, despite the films slightly vulgar nature. The ending is great and completely works, after you think about it for a bit. This turned out to be one of those C. Bros. doings where you can proclaim what you love about it, but it'll take some time for you to completely get it.

Overall, Burn After Reading is another fantastic ending result by the filmmakers that brought you Fargo and No Country For Old Men. It's not mindless fun, but it's not intelligent fun either, but like I said, go in and expected the semi-unexpected. Wonderful performances, plenty of laughs and the touch of brilliance really make this one go far and hit the target let to the side of the bull's-eye mark. The Academy Awards won't be screaming it's name next year, unless nothing else notable comes this Oscar Season. Go and enjoy it, sometimes you'll be taken off guard by some of the slightly disturbing and dark elements, but an open mind never hurts, let the momentary confusion hurt for a bit, then your actual view on it will eventually take over.

Harry Pfarrer: Go around the corner, we'll do it in the back.
Katie Cox: You're so coarse.
Harry Pfarrer: Back of the car... not the rear entry situation....

Producer/Writer/Director Judd Apatow has come a long way from making TV shows to great movies like Anchorman and Superbad and directing films like The 40 Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up. I've felt though that Apatow hasn't really done any awseome movies since Superbad, with Walk Hard and Drillbit Taylor just being okay movies, but now, that dry season is over. Thanks to Jason Segel's brilliant script, charming performances and cameos and that little touch of Apatow, makes Forgetting Sarah Marshall hard to forget.

Jason Segel is incredible. He can make the most disguisting thing into something funny. What I mean by that is, the guy gets full frontally nude in the film and most of the time, you'll wanna throw up if you see something like that or causes you to go blind for a while. But Segel made this and many more things so funny, the disguistingness, if that's even a word, doesn't over come you. I hate to bash Walk Hard again, but the full frontal nude scene in that one felt pushed in to try to be extra diguisting and more so disturbing, FSM, does the exact opposite. There are many things that this movie does right more so than previous Apatow films. I'm more of a fan of his works that are funny but in a sense serious. Maybe that's why I liked Knocked Up and this one so much, there's a little something of everything. It doesn't rely on slapsticks or pinkys getting cut off. (Though I did like that in Drillbit Taylor) Becasue Segel is acting in it too, he's able to really bring the characters he wants, and his wonderful performance and script put together makes a brilliant mix. What's also nice is the fact that he doesn't try to make his character the centre of all the attention. There are little stories and some deep characters surrounding his, which adds to the enjoyable complexity to the story. It's nice having someone to cheer for in all movies, Segel is that guy.

Everyone who is a supporting actor in this film is fantastic. From the beautiful actresses Kirsten Bell and Milla Kunis to the fricken hillarious performances by Jonah Hill, Jack McBrayer, Paul Rudd and HOLY SH** BILL HADER! This guy is to awesome in this movie, it's his best perfomance ever in a film, better than most he's even done on SNL. Hader adds so much to this film, it wouln't be much without him being the quirky step-brother with a girlfriend that pushes him around, especially when he and Segel are talking over the computer. There's definately chemistry to all characters here. Another very notable performance is done by Russel Brand, who plays the perverted new boyfriend of Kirsten Bell aka Sarah Marshall. His lazy british accent mixed with his creepy acting makes his character one to remeber. His talks and interactions start off with some respect towards the charcter, then he loses it by throwing in his own, disturbing opinions and so-called knowledge on life. It's was always hillarious to see any scene with Brand's character and Jonah Hill's character, since Hill's character had a little more than a man-crush on him. Disturbing but more so funny, kinda like this whole movie.

You gotta love Hawaii. This was the perfect place for this movie to be set. The beautiful locations and shots make the setting a character in itself. Some of the things that happen in this movie, you'd never would happen in Hawaii. That's another thing about FSM, the movies believable and the people you're watching are relatable to you. An important things that's been in most Apatow films, except the ones with Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly have been in. Those ones are great, but not personal favorites. But yeah, Hawaii was the perfect location for the majority of the film, you get the scenery and interesting natives, also Mila Kunis who adds even more to it all. I can see her doing better that Ashton Kutcher, Topher Grace and all those other original 70's Show cast members, she's the best of the bunch from that show, well, maybe not Wilmer Valderrama, the actress from that show.

There's only one point in the film where it drags, but most people will be too busy laughing their guts out to notice. I noticed unfortunately, but heck, I was laughing hard still.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is such an amazing and funny film I've come to the point now where I'm speechless. It's the best film I've seen since Run Fatboy, Run, which was back at that preview screening back in February. You can see how long I've been waiting for a movie like this, so far, this year has had more okay and bad movies than good and great movies so far this year. It may get better later in the year, but as of right now Forgetting Sarah Marshall is my favorite Judd Apatow created film, and my favorite movie of the year so far! See it!

I think the reason why Milk works so well to a variety of audiences, (black, white, religious, gay, straight etc.) is because it isn't only telling the story of a man who fought for gay rights, but for human rights in total. Milk is a powerful story that is well told and excecuted with Gus Van Sants famous style and approach to filmmalking. Sean Penn delivers his second best performance ever as Harvey and it's likely he'll be in the Oscar run coming up. And overall, Milk serves as a reminder that everyone has rights from the bright beginning to the tragic end. It's definately one of the best of the year and should be experienced by film goers everywhere.

What can I say? Calling this a great film wouldn't justify it, but that kind of gives you a hint on how special Frost/Nixon is. It's an important film to watch for sure, but the exceution of it really serves the films purpose. Frost/Nixon is a treat for history buffs, Frank Langella fans and a fan of the Oscar buzz movies. At this point, Frost/Nixon is likely to get a best picture nomination, but with all the other great films flooding in this late in the year, it's hard to tell. But Ron Howard delivers yet another masterpiece to add to his directors resume. He gets out of the Da Vinci Code hole and climbs back into the the good books. The highlight of Frost/Nixon is definately the performances by Frank Langella and Michael Sheen. Langella portrayed Nixon in a broadway version of this, and out does himself in the film version. I hope to see Frost/Nixon somehow in the upcoming Academy Awards and most likely will, because it truely is a "more than great" film, Howard's best since Cinderella Man.

Wow! I've seen a lot of comedies this year, out of the 100's of movies I've scene, and in the end, Role Models stands out a lot more than most. Not only is it funny beyond belief, it has a heart, a big one at that. Very few comedies like Ghost Town and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, have a true story and solid humor to work, making them the kind of film you'd wanna laugh at again and again. Role Models is one of those movies, it goes places most comedies won't. Sure, there's the occasional vulgar thing, but come on, majority of comedies today have them, not always for the best, but here, it works. The acting in Role Models is top-notch, yes, even by Sean William Scott, the usual contender for worst actor ever. But since he was surrounded by greats like Paul Rudd, some of his talent rubbed on to him. Everyone is great in this movie, most noteably Chris Mintz-Plasse, who can be more than McLovin. Some of the stuff Bobb'e J. Thompson says in this film is crazy for a little kid to say, but funny in the end, if not shocking. And Elizabeth Banks, she's just a load of talent, with a movie of hers coming out of every week. And Jane Lynch, should have a TV series, I'm serious. But what I really appreciate about Role Models is the story and what a great story it was. It gives us a message that really means something to viewers and speaks to people in a powerful way, a combination of laughs and great characters. This is definately one to see if you're looking for the near-perfect comedy, you simply can't go wrong with this one.

This was truely an honor and a privelege to see. Run Fat Boy Run is definatley one of the best british comedies ever made. It's got funny parts, disturbing parts and touchy parts, but the touchy parts aren't overdone. David Schwimmer has come a long way from playing that stupid character from Friends, to a director with lots of potential. Simon Pegg plays his most realistic role in my opinion. At times he acts crazy, but not like he did in Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead. Overall, he's terrifc through the entire film. Dylan Moron does an awsome job too, playing Dennis (Simon Pegg)'s cousin, who brings plenty of laughs. But the coolest character is Mr. Goshdashtidar, played by Harish Patel. I don't know why, but it always seems that people with middle-eastern accents who do funny stuff are beyond funny! I love the scenes with him and his spatula. Who knew there were so many uses for a spatula, varying from being a good trainer tool to a weapon of devestating pain. The film's also a good example of how running away from your fears never works and to work against your fears, brings back the things you lost to fear. As of February, this is the best film I've seen these first two months of the year! The film comes out to theaters March 28, so please go see it! I got lucky with a special screening and happily to report that this movie will be worth your money. After Run Fatboy Run, I look forward to more Simon Pegg and more David Schwimmer in the directors chair. See Run, Fat Boy Run, it's like Rocky mixed with a lot of british humor and Terry Fox inspirations.

It's always hard to try and bring back a legend to the bigscreen. Last year, Live Free or Die Hard reminded us that it can be done, with the right people at the helm. This is propably one of the most anticipated films of the decade, joining the ranks of Star Wars and such. Even though Steven Spielberg was directing and Lucas was writting and the good ol' whip cracking Harrison Ford was back on board, people still had major doubts about this one. But who could blame them right? Indiana Jones is an old and beloved character and Ford is even older than that, could he really do this again? Well, we've finally seen the end result and I'm glad to say that The Last Crusade wasn't the last time we saw Indy doing the stuff the people love to see again and again and again....... and now again.

What makes the character of Indiana Jones so acceptable and loveable in this film is the fact he acts his own age. Basically, that's the only way to go and Ford knows this without losing the Indy we got to know 19 years ago, the one we respect. It's kind of like the fans have grown older with him and he's still such a great character new fans will get a kick out of him like others did back when "Raiders" came along. Adding Shia LaBeouf, someone kids will know for sure, makes the film all the more attractive to multiple audiences. LaBeouf was really great in this film, maybe the best he's done. His role so important in the movie too, he's not just one of those characters thrown in for comedic effect. We don't get sidekicks like that anymore. Karen Allen was great too, another original person that was definatley needed. After seeing this installment, it worked out that Sean Connery wasn't in it. It wouldn't have worked with him in it anyways. Indy's at the point in his life where his parents would have passed on so it was something necissary to exclude. Don't get me wrong, Connery is one of my favorites of the saga, but like Adrian not being in Rocky Balboa and Col. Samuel Trautman not being in Rambo (though that actor is now dead), the story benefits from these changes. Cate Blanchett plays the ultimate bad guy. She's ruthless, mysterious and overall a lot of fun to watch. Blanchett has become one of my all time favorite actresses and the oscar she won for The Aviator was extremely well deserved. Seeing her in a movie like this made it all the more impressive and fun to watch. Like we don't get too many great sidekicks these days, the same goes for villians and Blanchetts adds to a great line of villains.

Visually, this movie's stunning. The action is incredible and the special effects may make it into next years Academy Awards. The jungle sequence will have you laughing and at the edge of your seat the entire time. It's one of the best action scenes I've ever seen in a movie and I've seen A LOT of movies. What's really wonderful about the whole style and tone, is that you can feel this is an Indiana Jones adventure. Though special effects have come a long way, it doesn't take away from the film's depth. Rocky did it and so has Indy, something fans will go and say "Yep! That's something Indiana Jones would do." The story is wierd like the original installments, maybe even more wierd than the originals, but because it's so witty and fun that it doesn't matter as much. The things that Indy goes through aren't exactly from The History Channel.

Steven Spielberg hasn't had anything incredilbe out since Saving Private Ryan back in 1998. It almost appeared that he had lost his touch. Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and Munich were good movies, but they won't go down in history. After this film, Spielberg may have found his groove again, the groove that game him the title: "One of the greatest directors of all time."

There was only one thing that took away a 5 star rating from this fantastic piece of filmmaking. The ending, not the final scene but the one before it. I don't want to give anything away, but it was typical Spielberg, long and tried to be too spiritual when it wasn't needed. It was a beautiful scene to watch, but it corrupted the films pace a bit. Spielberg has done this in his other movies before and just doesn't have a place to be in it, at least for that long. The last scene is great, a bit of fore-shadowing that will make fans happy. But that leads to my final note.

There should be no more Indiana Jones movies. All of them have been great and it may get to the point where they make one that will not work. That's the thing about Hollywood these days, they milk a franchise until it goes stale and those stale ones affect your view on the originals. Please guys, end it and don't push your luck. One bad movie can screw up a series, even if it's someone like Indiana Jones.

In the end, we have an awesome film here and feel like this should be the actual "Last Crusade" for Indy. So far, this is the best summer blockbuster I've seen so far and I've seen Iron Man! It's also one of the best films of the year so far, joining the ranks of the few. Thanks to Ford's excellent performance, new and old characters and a style that really is recognizable to us fans, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is that smooth and addictive Disneyland ride you've been waiting for a long time.

Stallone does it again, with a big bucket of blood.

Ghost Town is the 100th film I have seen this year, and what a 100th film it was. It's a showcase of stellar performances, strong storytelling and humor that's as top notch as Ricky Gervais' TV series Extras. The supporting cast here is terrific, Tea Leoni and Greg Kinnear in true form and Kirsten Wiig still showing us that her talent extends beyond those SNL studio walls. I've never been a big fan of David Koepp in the directors chair, or David Koepp at all, but in Ghost Town he plays out his screenplay in such a wondeful, it feels like we've known these characters forever. Truely a superb effort by everyone and it's something I can call one of the best of the year. 100's turned out to be quite the lucky number and I'm honored that Ghost Town got to be that lucky number.

There seems to be a lot of movies out there, trying to present the power of music in different forms. We get the occasional crap like High School Musical and Camp Rock, the stupid and forgettable heart toucher's like August Rush and the type that really only sets itself for a very specific audience, take Mamma Mia as an example. While 'some' of these films have something good to sing about, most are just stuffed into a package of annoying, endless musical sequences with cheesy performances and the worst scenarios imaginable. I've been waiting for quite a long time for the musical movie would set it for not only me, but film goers in total and really think we may finally have it. The Visitor isn't the barer of hip teens, dancing when something goes wrong or something goes right, and there isn't a catchy song you'll be hearing on the radio constantly, but who needs singing, dancing, and corny lyrics when you have plenty of great musicianship, superb performances and one of the strongest stories I've got to experience this year, what more could you ask for?

If you're a hormonal teenage girl, Richards Jenkins is no Zac Efron, but Jenkins can do two things Efron can't, act and play a darn good drum beat. Seriously, the cast in The Visitor is top notch, not a single flaw in the bunch. Each actors plays their role with such authenticity, at times, you'll forget this is a movie you're watching and not a real life story, a video camera capturing the whole the thing with complete elegance and perfection. Truly this is Richard Jenkins' best performance so far, he's been in two others this year, Step Brothers and Burn After Reading, but here, he gives his all. Haaz Sleiman, an actor that's brand new to me, makes a terrific first impression, giving the second best performance in the film, the one with the most raw emotion. Actresses' Hiam Abbass and Danai Jekesai Gurira make very notable acts here, making this cast one to remember. Many, myself included, are hoping the one of these great actors or actresses will get an Oscar nomination for what they're done in this film, they're all astonishing.

Of course, a great performance usually comes hand in hand with the material it's inspired by and with The Visitor, there's no exception. The story is immensely strong and clearly original. I was speaking about how bad High School Musical was above and that comparison is spot on. HSM just has a so-called attractive cast, I don't see it, besides from that, the music is annoying, the acting is terrible and the stories are something out of an Archie comic. The Visitor finally blends some great music, amazing performances and a story that no other film of its type can beat. It's definitely not a music movie, there's too much of a story here and that story is a strong and emotional ride that keeps you into it the whole time, enjoyable and moving. The ending may be a little off to some people, leaving them on the depressing side of things, but it turns out to be a necessary finish to the storyline and want the movie to never end. The Visitor also raises awareness in some issues throughout the world and never does it pressure that awareness on us to the point where it's uncomfortable. Every thing's very evened out and rarely goes off course.

The Visitor also showcases some good music, mostly to do with drumming, not on sets, but everything else. Some of the solos and duets in here are great and bring on plenty of emotion that flows through the veins of this movie. Your inner drummer may just happen to break out while watching it.

Overall, The Visitor is a near-masterpiece with plenty to offer from beginning to end. Richard Jenkins and the gang are a wonderful ensemble of cast who give us a lot of gut wrenching moments and interesting musical moments. The story helps bring all of this together, it really is something wondrous to behold and remember. This is one of the best films of the year and one of the more Oscar worthy. There's a little imperfection here and there, but not a whole lot to clearly recognize, either than the fact that Richard Jenkins' character Walter gets called Richard once. See this film, it's one of those movies that hit all the right notes and grabs the heart and shows the power of human spirit. Drums are amazing, I just thought I'd add that in.

When you're given something from the Apatow team, you know it isn't going to be your usual comedy, you'll be getting two things in one. With Knocked Up, it was Romance/Raunchy, With Superbad, it was Teen/Raunchy (Maybe "teen" was only needed to describe it) and with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, that was Romance/Raunchy and the list continues on. If you haven't noticed yet, raunchy is a big part of the Apatow line and it always will be, unless he starts becoming a stupid family film fanatic like Chevy Chase, but we all know that softer side from Judd usually results in things like Drillbit Taylor. Now he's back for a fourth time this year, along with the duo who wrote Superbad, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg , and a very talented director, David Gordon Green (Snow Angels) and together, they bring forth a fresher form of comedy, Action/Crime/Stoner and yes, raunchy. But I can sum all what it is into one name: Pineapple Express.

You can probably see that I know a bit about Judd Apatow and his work, pretty much because I like/love most of the movies he produces, directs and solo writes. The movies he co-wrote suck or semi-suck. Pineapple Express had a lot to live up to, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the best Apatow has done so far in my opinion, and it's one of my favorite movies of the year. I knew Step Brothers wasn't going to do it, but Step Brothers kind of caught me off guard with the fact that it was quite clever, and that chemistry between Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly was undeniably there. Also, I saw Tropic Thunder, a great, GREAT action/comedy that had the funnies worthy of the all-star cast, that it ended up deserving.. Pineapple Express doesn't have a fantastic cast and some of the notable actors here are in Tropic Thunder too. But what Tropic Thunder doesn't have is Seth Rogen and James Franco. These two reunite after a long while, since Freaks and Geeks was canceled in 2000, a crime still to this day that someone would end such an amazing show. Anyways Seth Rogen has made a name for himself since then, Knocked Up made him my hero. Okay, not my hero but the fact that a fellow Canadian and a fellow British Columbian made it big is just a really cool thing. James Franco was great in the Spider-Man films, but I don't believe his actual talent was fully realized in those films. Pineapple Express brings the best out of both Rogen and Franco, together with an even more convincing chemistry than that of John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell.

It's hard to play a stoner, making it look real and feel real to the viewers. Rogen though, is already a master at this sort of thing, thanks to films like Knocked Up. Franco steals the show in Pineapple Express, he's surprisingly brilliant his performance and is probably the funniest person not to have a cameo. Speaking of cameos, Bill Hader comes along in a funny sequence in the beginning, but I didn't feel that scene was really necessary, it wasn't even clever stupid. We've also got Danny McBride who does a job well done as Red, the guy who can't seem to die. Then there's Amber Heard, who replaced Olivia Thirlby for the role of Angie Anderson Dale's (Seth Rogen) high school girlfriend. It's a bit of a creepy relationship, but hey, what would you expect from an Apatow film. The unexpected pretty much. Heard is less of a deep actress than Thirlby, but I think a somewhat blind girl who thinks a 25 year-old low life is sexy, didn't need anyone shooting for an Oscar. There are plenty of other good performances but overall, Franco wins the most attention, especially when he's stoned out of his mind, or not.

Pineapple Express is more than a comedy for sure, more than just a stoner comedy too. Yes, you'll laugh your head off but it actually makes for a great action flick and okay crime thriller. I remember there was a lot of moments where I was at the edge of my seat, waiting for a bullet to be fired, or that there'd be some Asian assassin or Gary Cole around the corner. Others, I would be laughing too hard to even manage getting a bite of popcorn. And then there's plenty of drugs all over the film, either being smoked with a lighter, or explosives. It really would send a mixed message to the younger viewers, especially the scene where Saul and Dale are selling Pineapple Express to some young kids for money, but most of it is just funny to watch. The climax of the movie is fantastic, funny and loaded with tension and more fun than anything Tropic Thunder had actually. Some people were complaining that Pineapple Express was slightly gory, but I liked the fact that is was realistic like Superbad, except for the fact that Red (Danny McBride) could never die. I'm a bigger fan of the realistic films the Apatow gang does, they're easier to identify with and I think director David Gordon Green strongly realized this was the way to go. Without David Gordon Green, the film wouldn't have been much, even with Rogen and Goldberg's screenplay. Green's style is solid and brings the best out of this flick, giving a bigger, greater package of guns and weed.

Sadly, Pineapple Express has quite a few problems that make it quite disappointing for me and maybe my unrealistic expectations. Bill Hader's cameo is funny, but the scene he's in didn't work for me, mainly because it just set the wrong mood for the movie. This movie is not stupid, the humor is clever and the action is jaw dropping and this scene was completely out of place. It does tell you something that relates to the movie, but something we knew before we even heard of this movie. There was also that scene when Dale and Saul were selling those drugs to the kids, that was a little unsettling and could offend parents, but I still thought of it as a little smart in its own creepy way. Pineapple Express has trouble finding a balance with the content it has. You'll be laughing your head off at times when people are getting killed, which gives you a mixed feeling. And then all of a sudden, it gets gory when it seemed tamed the whole way through, turning into a different kind of movie. I'm not going to bother saying other things about this major flaw, see this film, but sometimes it gives us too much or too little at some very wrong times.

Pineapple Express is the definitive stoner flick for sure, while presenting some entertaining action sequences and wreaking the laughs not many other comedies this year have managed to give. It's forgettable, unlike Sarah Marshall and it's no Knocked Up, but thanks to the strong team of a great producer, two great writers, a talented director and James Franco, this is a powerhouse of a fun fest, having us laugh until we cry. I like it more than Superbad and half a molecule more than Tropic Thunder, but like every movie out there, it's still flawed. For all you potheads and non-potheads, see this film after you see Tropic Thunder, you'd be saving the best for last. Whether you're high on weed or high on white-out, or not high at all, you'll find Pineapple Express to be a blast from start to finish, if you can make your way around the mess.

Dale Denton: If you're a dick your whole life, you're going to come back as something bad like a slug or a fu**in' anal bead. But if you do something heroic then you'll come back as like an eagle or a dragon, or Jude Law. Now which would you rather be, an anal bead or a dragon.
Red: I think...the anal bead...depending on who it belongs to.
Dale Denton: It belongs to me.

Let's get one thing out of the way. Iron Man had to carry a huge responsibility, kicking off the summer movie season. Not only that, there are so many superhero movies out there, with fantastic films like Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3 and Batman Begins out there, this movie needed a lot to offer us, something we've never seen before. And I'm happy to say that Iron Man's the perfect way to kick off the official summer season and it's also one of better superhero movies out there.

Robert Downey Jr......... Terrence Howard..........
Gwyneth Paltrow...........
Jeff Bridges............., it's the powerful cast that makes this movie what it is. The acting here is near superb and really goes above the action scenes, awesomeness wise. Though Robert Jr. isn't exactly different from his other roles (Though his role in Charlie Bartlett was quite unique), the role of Tony Stark is really the role this guy's type of acting is best suited for. Brilliant, arogant and classy has been well done here. And even if the "toys" Stark is making are mostly computer generated, Robert Jr. still looks like he's having fun building them with his imagination. It's a great to see actors in their high-points in movies like this, since it's not common for the role of a superhero to bring the best out. It's worked for Toby Maguire, Christian Bale and few others, Robert Jr. has joined these people. Still, this movie is nothing without the supporting roles. Gwyneth Paltrow isn't at her best here, but it's just enough, but it works the best in the fantastic scenes with Robert Jr. Chemistry is indeed required in order for the superhero-girl relationship to work and that chemistry overflows in Iron Man. In fact, the scenes with those two together were the highlights of the movie for me. Some form of romance is between the two characters, but I think they're saving the rest of it for the sequel. Terrence Howard plays the good over-protective pal many of us know in our own lives. He's quite good in Iron Man, scratch that, very good. For fans of the Iron Man comics, there's a scene in the film involving Howard that foreshadows something that just completely drives fans to the brink of insanity. Iron Man has plenty of hidden gems that only original fans will catch and laugh or drool about it. It has a little something that everyone can see and enjoy. I can't give too much away about Jeff Bridges' character, I'll just say he's just great like everything.
Leslie Bibb has a few scenes, as does director Jon Fravreau as one of Stark's bodygaurds. You also gotta love those Stan Lee cameos. From X-Men to today, his cameos have always been highlights of the films for his fans. There's also one other cameo that I can't talk about. To see it, stay after the credits and when most fans see it, they'll scream or cheer or clap or something in excitement.

Iron Man has a few good action sequences, but unlike Transformers, the action doesn't make up the movie. Like I said, the actors keep the movie together. Jon Favreau isn't really an action director, you can see that in the end result that is this movie. I mean, the guy directed Elf, what would you expect? I guess the action can be described as short but sweet. We get to see what Tony Stark's gadgets are made of, but the action won't leave you on the edge of your seat. I did like the fact that usually when Iron Man jumps on to the scene, he toasts everyone, kinda like Ghost Rider. A hint of weakness in Iron Man though, prevents us from thinking he's invincible though and that helps a lot. I must say though, I wasn't all that impressed with the final fight sequence. The short but sweet form shouln't apply to the FINAL fight between the hero and the villian, but here it's quite short. Not all that impressive niether, just pretty fun. You'd think that a huge epic fight between Iron Man and Iron Monger would last a long time, but no, Iron Man gets beat up a bit, then well you'd know what's gonna happen next. Special Effects are very good here, but none can still beat Spider-Man's.

Iron Man is one of those films people will come screaming to you: "You have to see this! You have to see this!" I will agree, I've seen a lot of movies this year and so far, it's been a bit of a waist. You get the occasional incredible film like Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Rambo,Run Fatboy Run and this little film of greatness. If you were to choose between Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Iron Man, I'd recommend FSM a lot more. But if you can't even get into that movie, Iron Man is definately the way to go and I look forward to seeing this film franchise that has so much potential, expand on, entertaining us in a way that's worth our cash.

Not a fan of John Travolta? Not a fan of Miley Cyrus? Not a fan of non-Pixar Disney films> Well, I'm happy to tell you guys that Bolt is not only one of the best animated films of the year, it's one of Disney's best animated films that have nothing to do Pixar. Bolt is a wonderful movie, simply putting it and you know why, it has something for everyone. I've never been a John Travolta fan and I thought he lost it after seeing Hairspray, but in Bolt, he brongs forth the ideal dog voice that we all wish our dogs had. Miley Cyrus doesn't sound like a skanky redneck here too, she delivers a soft, gentle voice that really helps us forget she's Hannah Montanna. The voice work in Bolt is fantastic all in all, not a flaw to heard here. Susie Essman takes a break from swearing every sentence, to deliver a cat named Mittens, whom cat lovers will surely love. In my opinion thogh, it's Mark Walton who steals the show, as he plays the hillarious hamster Rhino, I hope to see Walton in many more films, he's fantastic. Bolt showcases a wondeful array of crisp and sharp computer animation that nearly rivals Pixar. Pixar still kicks butt when it comes to detail, but Bolt goes beyond most films in the animated leaugue. And boy are those animals cute, wierd but cute and full of life. Where Bolt mostly shines though is in its story, which is consistently clever, full of laughs and those touching moments Disney's know for. And the story helps us appreciate the characters much more than the humor, and it's the animals we end up relating to. It even gets to make fun of Michael Bay movies, you know, the really bad Hollywood blockbusters like Bad Boys 2 and Transformers. Thanks to Bolt, I have a new respect for hamsters and Rhino the hamster is arguably the greatest hamster ever known. He doesn't steal the show on his own, he's only a big part of it. Bolt really is an animated film you must see as soon as possible, if you want something to sustain your craving for animated films until Up!, which arrives next year. Don't wait for the DVD, take the kids or pals to see this one, you'll probably find something to love about, like everyone else. It's a also a film that will unite dog and cat lovers together in harmony again, after a long seven year dispute since Cats and Dogs came out. (hehe)

I think nowadays, we're experiencing a craze that hasn't been around since the Power Rangers were popular. We're starting to get a lot martial arts films for younger audiences. Unlike the Power Rangers though, the whole family can actually enjoy these movies. Earlier this year, we got Horton Hears a Who, a nice little animated film that did Dr. Seuss justice at last. Then we got the Forbidden, which did cheesy martial arts right, mainly because Jackie Chan and Jet Li were in the same movie. Through those two together and thrown a little unique touches, you get a great movie called Kung Fu Panda. This movie is incredibly awesome and the movie poster warns you of that ahead of time and it ain't lieing.

You thought Horton Hears a Who had a great voice cast, wait til you see this one. Normally, Jack Black would make the movie, but isn't the one that steals the show in this one. you got:

Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Ian McShane, SETH ROGEN.... need I to continue, I think this movie spelled awesome at Jackie Chan, then adding McShane and SETH ROGEN, pushed it thorugh the roof. The voice work here is incredible, classic in fact. While unfortunatley some like Jackie Chan and SETH ROGEN don't get as many lines, there's enough here to satisfy each actors' fans. You amazing one-liners here, so many it's hard to count. "Awesomeness and atractiveness are free of charge!" You don't even get one memorable line in most films, if not more than one. But the films packed with witty dialogue and overall a good story the actors can work off of. Ian McShane is probably the best here. He takes the role of the bad guy here very seriously and manages to have a whole lot of fun doing it. Would you believe if I told you that Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman actually give some of there best performances here? Renée Zellweger did it in Bee Movie and so has Black and Hoffman, which makes Kung Fu Panda all the more special. The story is also inspirational if you can believe it. Aside from the magical themes to it, there's a good lesson here that does get taught a lot, but not in this fun of a way. A good story is the foundation for a good movie.

The animation is actually perfect, like Ratatouille perfect. It's literally beautiful to look at, especially when the action scenes are in play. I don't know how they could make a mantis fighting a tiger look so flippin good, but they did it. It isn't too much when you look at it either, none of it's distraction and all is blended quite nicely. I had this problem at times with Horton Hears a Who in which some things distracted me from the characters, but here, that problem's not present and the animation's a little better than Horton. I guess this movie's something special, it was featured at Cannes after all. I guess you could look at it in an artsy view, that alone would blow your mind!

Kung Fu Panda really is a great film, an achievement in my opinion. While it doesn't rise up there with the Pixar films (except it's better than Cars), but it's one of the best non Disney films out there. The movie's beautiful to look at(makes Horton Hears a Who look like a videogame), amazingly fun to watch and really is worth the price of admission, something I can't about most movies this year. The blinking eyes are starting to creep me out on the Kung Fu Panda flixster page, so until next time, "Ska-doosh!"

Clint Eastwood is awesome, acting wise amd directing wise, in which in Gran Torino, he does both, perhaps for the last time when it comes to acting. But after seeing this film, it still proves to me that Eastwood could do an old western showdown and win against a 20 year-old. Simply putting it, he kicks butt, and he delivers my favorite line of the year: "Get off my lawn!" The movie itself is solid and works as a great drama, rather than a thriller and the story covers some important issues such as racsim and gangs and leave it too Eastwood to smack gangs of teenagers in the face and claim the prize for being awesome. If this is Eastwood's final acting role, you must see this movie, it serves as a great departure for his acting and career and a continuation of his wonderful directing career.

In my opinion, Oliver Stone had lost his talent of directing after seeing Alexander, one of the most pointless epics I ever laid my eyes on. World Trade Centre was better, but it lacked a certain powerful feeling to it the subject it was based upon, really needed. And now, Stone is tackling the history of one of the most hated men in history, George W. Bush, but only to help us understand him. I was excited for this one, Bush seems like a shallow/interesting character in reality if that makes any sense, and would've been interesting to see his life in whatever way Stone took on the project, comedic or serious, it was something a bunch of people were hoping would be done right, for the sake of the people who have apparently suffered under his leadership. I'm not an American, so I wouldn't know what this terror has done to the country, but from what I can tell and after watching this film, is that if you were in hot-seat, would you be any better?

Dubya takes a look at the life of Bush, and what a fascinating life that has been. He may appear stupid in reality, and in some ways, that's true, but in other ways, Bush is slightly bright, after all, how would he have made it into office after all. The great thing about W. is that it doesn't try to change your mind on Bush, it only enlightens it and doesn't go overboard with the details in the process. It's a very evened out story with a lot of humor, drama, and it never dries up. I gotta give it up for Oliver Stone for really getting it right, from what we can tell. And at least Bush is interesting, as are the people around him. And you know that crazy war going on right now, this film sheds some light on that topic. A lot is covered and it really never gets old.

The highlight of W. is definately the performances that shine as bright as Bush's ego. Josh Brolin is perfect, I mean PERFECT as Bush. You can tell he researched for his role highly, or just watched a bunch of Youtube videos, whatever the case, he's done his work and he's done it well. An Oscar-worthy performance, prehaps, only time will tell on what's coming later this year. Brolin is also what keeps the film going and holding our interest throughout. And he's flippin hillarious, in a realistic way. The supporting cast is also fantastic, particularly Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush and James Cromwell as George Sr. The cast is well selected and each part fits so perfectly, sometimes it's scary. But it all helps with the history that's unfolding before your eyes.

Thanks to superb performances and top notch story-telling, W. is a fantasticly done show that ends up being slightly short of a masterpiece. There's no particular negativity to it, it just doesn't feel perfect, or close to perfect. But it's a wonderful film non the less and also raises the question. If you were in Bush's shoes, would you be any better? Bush surely ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, but heck, not everyone's a genious. Bush is mainly a man who wanted to do some good and carry on the family legacy, but the weight of the world squashed. He's pretty much like us, he's just got the fancy office and of course the rule of country, but otherwise, as many are saying after seeing this movie, we are Bush, and that just flat out sucks!

So, Zack and Miri have made a porno and you know what? It's a darn awesome one! At first, I had my doubts about this film, not because of Seth Rogen or Elizabeth Banks or even the concept, it was the person in the directors chair that I was worried about. Kevin Smith has talent, in more ways than directing, which is writting, acting and pretty much everything you can do in the movies. The problem is, I haven't really liked any of Smith's films since Clerks and that's from way back in the nineties. Sure, I wouldn't see it for years to come, but compared to all of his other films, Zack and Miri and their porno looke liked they were heading straight for the "only rent" line up of forgettable sex comedies. I'm glad my lofty expectations were blown away by this great film, even through all the dirt and stomach turning moments, there's a heart there, that isn't in a lot of pornos, or sex comedies in total. When I say though that there's dirt and stomach turning, I should but an exclamation mark on that discription. There's dirt and stomach turning! No, still doesn't justify on just how twisted this film can get and how akward it can be with other people around watching too, it can go to places not many R-rated films have gone before. There will be stuff that'll make the girls embarrased and the guys laughing and the girls cringing, and vice versa. But when that's looked past understood, all that sex, all that language and loads of cheesy porn, you'll see that it's all a part of the genious that is now officially Kevin Smith. Zack and Miri are a fantastic duo and Seth and Liz keep our interests held through the entire scarring ride. Seth seems to be in his same kind of genre, but Liz Banks gets out of her typical PG comfort zone and goes the mile to this flick more than it could've been. You almost wish you could be friends just like they are with the girl sittting right next to you, by that I mean girlfriend, not some random grandma who came into the wrong movie, but is intranced by the great laughs. My favorite Justin Long role now is officially him as the gay porn actor, who we "luckily" don't get to see go nude, Jason Mewes did that to my disliking, but Long is awesome, as his boyfriend Superman aka. Brandon Routh. Everyone's great here and so is the story. There's a really good story in Zack and Miri, that really means something to the viewers and sticks with them long after, kinda a life lesson. And what's better than learning a lesson from the porno business, you tell me. This is just such a wonderful movie, one of the funniest in my opinion, because it doesn't go for the cheap laughs, but clever dialogue and great characters to match. Check it out of you're ready to handle all the stuff it's going throw at you, because who wouldn't want to watch loveable people make a porno called Star Whores?

I had just seen the Strangers, I didn't want to see anything heavy or empty hearted. Zohan looks severly shallow and Kung Fu Panda's, well......... Kung Fu Panda, I needed something to lift me up since I nearly sh** myself, the Strangers was a well done film, worth seeing if you're a seeker of complete, overflowing fear for about an hour and a half, then have it haunt your dreams for a night or two. So, I found Small People in a small- time theater in my city, a film I've wanted to see for a while. So my friends and I went to the theater, mostly because of Ellen Page's presence in the movie, but in the end, we were surprised with something "different".

Now truthfully, most people only wanted to see this for Ellen Page. Her performance in Juno was incredible and the oscar she deserved was given to someone who everone had known as "who?" But Page fans are gonna have to get ready to watch something that isn't all about her, nor is it all about Parker or Church nor Quaid. It's a little bit about everyone and takes time to let us get to know these individuals at a pace we feel relaxed and comfortable with. The perfomances really help with that, which unfortunately won't make it into the oscars, but feel genuine and well played. The oscars have overlooked many incredible acts throughout history. When Dennis Quaid is on screen, it's not the guy you saw early this year in Vantage Point. He's seems to have grown out of that for this very mature and deep role. He pulls it off so well, I forgot this Quaid in this movie and that's a hard thing to do these days, it's always been. What was incredibly special about his performance to me in this movie, was that he reminded me of a socials teacher I had in grade 8. The scenes with him and his students almost felt they were taken right out of those days I've experienced. I'm sure almost all of us has had some form of teacher like this in our lives and that creates a much more personal character to the viewers. Thomas Haden Church gives us his best performance since Sideways and that's saying A LOT. Almost every scene this guy's in, he steals the show. He brings a needed element to the movie, something we rely on to keep us away from the depressing but intereseting life of Quaids character. Church also did this last year with Spider-Man 3, he's was moslty what saved the movie for me. You all know that Venom was shallow and that horrible emo Spidey walking through the streets could've destroyed that movie, thank god we had Sandman. With Quaid and Church around doing some of their best work, we needed some powerful acting from the actresses. Not too much of that here. Ellen Page was great but in a way she just pulled off another Juno with her teenage spunk. Don't get me wrong, she's great but nothing special. She got to wear "Bleeker" shorts in this movie, only they were red. There was just a little bit of Juno spirit here too that'll satisfy the fans of that superb "shoulda won the oscar but No Country for Old Men was my second choice" movie. Sarah Jessica Parker was well...... Sarah Jessica Parker. She isn't bad here, but she's surrounded by such great acts here she has a lot to live up to. She still hasn't grown out of her Sex and the City act yet, but there's still hope for her. Every person deserves some time to master their craft, except Jessica Alba, you maybe gorgeous, but not even acting lessons can save you.

A film with a bad script just doesn't work, we all know that not even the greatest perfomance can save a film thats story is a wreck. Thanks to a clever script and anything but dull cast, this movie works better than most I've seen this year. Mark Poirier makes his debut as screenwriter and I can see him having a bright future. It's not a "Diablo Cody" debut, yet there's so much to be admired here. Along with Noam Murro's direction, the story is crafted to make us laugh and feel what the characters feel, more so the second thing. We get the proper dose of each and non of it feels forced upon us. When going into this movie, don't expect to laugh your head off, expect to be moved. This really is a drama that showcases the human spirit, what it is and what it does. The relationship between Quaid and Parker is actually a very touching one that pays off in the end after observing it the whole time. The relationship between Church and Page is cute, if not a little creepy. It'll vary on different points of view. All in all, it's a unique story that leaves you feeling good and that's what a good dramedy should do.

In the end, Smart People is one of those solid films that gets underrated for reasons I just can't understand. Besides Parker's plain performance and Page's excellent Juno-clone performance, it's just one of those movies that aims for the heart and completely hits the mark. A cliche' expert would say that: "You'd be smart to go and see this."

So yeah, horror and suspense movies are completely terrible these days. Whatever happened to great movies like The Shinning and Phsyco, films that truely shook us to the core. The 21st century has been really bad with these movies so far. The Grudge, Shutter, things we just don't care about now and won't care about in the future. Now the Strangers has come along and now I've done something I haven't done since I was a baby because of this movie. Shat my pants. (jk)

The Strangers is a very unique and intense movie that literally keeps you on the edge of your seat. I've never felt so frickn scared in a movie theater before, I wanted to leave and cry in a corner, or check for monsters under my bed. The acting here is top notch, mostly Liv Tyler's performance. Some say she went too far in this film, but it's a horror film, we arent seeing people getting killed with butterknives, you're allowed to over due it for the most part. The enemies in this film are creepy, like a teacher you suddenly see looming over you while you're writting a test. No really, they're THAT terrifying. I don't believe we've seen such an iconic group of killers for a while, at least fictional ones. Though the entire movie doesn't explain much about them, even that bittersweet ending, doesn't that make it work in more in the movie's favor?

There's a certain style that keeps this movie from going into your typical slasher flick. Most of this movie takes place in the home, which feels cramped and unsafe at every corner. The lighting and the sound effects really complete it all, there's some eerie elements here. The Strangers is also very disturbing. No, I don't believe this actually happened, maybe something like it did, but the fact is that once the human spirit is tampered with enough it can tear a person apart before any killer could. That's propably not the basis this movie was trying to set, but it really came out that way. Director Bryan Bertino makes his directorial premire with this movie and I gotta say, he might have good career to follow The Strangers. His approach to the subject matter is much more thought out, kinda like the things you got to see back in thr 60's.

Now I have my official guide to watching the Strangers.

#1 Don't eat while you're watching this movie, the popcorn will stick in your throat and kill you. (An other words, there's a lot of moments that'll make choke while you eat)

#2 If you get scared easily STAY AWAY! If you thought the Blair Witch Project was too scary, you'd be considered a wuss when compaired to this movie.

# 3 Don't watch with your eyes fully exposed. If watching it with eyes fully bare, you're more than likely to have a brain anurism. Try watching it through the slits between your fingers. Maybe and I mean MAYBE you'll be okay.

#4 Don't drink too much pop either, you know what will happen.

#5 Did I mention not too have you're eyes fully exposed. That's the most important one pretty much.

In the end, The Strangers is a terrific horror film that has finally set the bar for the rest of the decade or more. It has its faults, I mean the ending wasn't too great but the rest is quite a ride. Take those tips and you'll be fine.................... maybe.

All I can say is, Welcome Back Roger Donaldson! It's about time you've completed another film. And I've gotta say, The Bank Job was one awesome ride!

Jason Statham, action epic actor extrodinaire. At times I wondered if this martial arts actor had any skill in actual acting and charater presentation. All he's been in is eye candy films, like the Transporter and War. Every time I've watched Statham in film, always an action movie, I never got into his acting, his characters were not very engaging. The best he got was his role in the Transporter, there was almost something there. Due to his long line of bad movies, I was beginning to believe that he was just another Jackie Chan or Jet Li who spoke english a little better. But now that I've finally seen a role where Statham isn't in need of a karate kick to loosen up a possible dull area in a film, he only uses his acting, in one of the mosr memorable perforamances of the year so far.

Based on a true story, the film follows a group of men, led by Terry Leather (Statham), who are given information on a possible robbery oppurtunity by one of Leather's old "friends". (Martine Love- Played by Saffron Burrows.) Then a series of lies, betrayls and deaths occur, making this job a difficult one to accomplish.

As I said before, The Bank Job holds Statham's performance, and it's actually quite brilliant. He doesn't need to punch anyone and start a bar fight or something to be great, but fans of that type of Jason Statham, there's something you'll love if you wait a while. Through the whole film, Statham is believable, he is alive, no stunt wires required. He's also not just a good robber, he's a good family man too. Leather and his wife (Keeley Hawes) have good chemistry and every scene with them together feels right. Overall, it's a beautiful relationship to watch, even at the negative parts.

Not just Stathem, but Saffron Burrows gives a great performance as well, one of her best since Troy, where I think, she deserved more screen time. She pretty much keeps everything together, from plot to character developing. It really wouldn't be the near brilliant movie it was without her.

The film starts off pretty slow unfortunatley, which is the one drawback in this movie. A lot of character development and conversation is in it, but by some chance, couldn't they have quickned the pace just a little and reache the intensity? Definatley not a bad beginning, but it wasn't as thrilling as the rest of the film. When the robbery begins, that's when the greatness begins to shine. So many plot twists and edge of your seat sequences occur, you tend to wonder if all of this really happened. The film's also not plagued with loads of "gun to the head" moments or any car chase scenes don't make the movie. Conversation and close call moments are key and fitting for this kind of story. I can't imagine these people being able to survive anything with with guns firing from everywhere. The last twenty minutes are incredible and impressive, worthy of every dollar spent. Don't get me wrong, everything else is great in this film, but the beginning is just not as entertaining as the rest.

Roger Donaldson is a great director. With a long line of great films like Thirteen Days and Worlds Fastest Indian, he's truely one of the greatest directors on the planet right now. What he brings to the picture is care. He knows his material and uses his knowledge to the fullest, making the film believable every second. Speaking of believable, that's what this film has. Beleivability. Nothing seems out of time or out of place, from clothing to sets. I'm always impressed with a film that can turn from modern to past. I'm nto speaking medieval times wise, more like 20th century. And when you can get every detail right, you make the movie right.

The Bank Job is one of the most original films that've come out this year. 10,000 BC. may be more original, but I'm talking about original in a good way. You simply can't take your eyes off of it, and in some scenes , where in most movies, they'd be boring, you still can't stop watching. Go to this film, have fun, worry about the history after.

The Rocker is a film I've been looking forward to for a while, mainly because Rainn Wilson hasn't had a starring role in his career. I'm still waiting for that movie where Rainn Wilson is the main star, because in The Rocker, he's not the only one who shines. I've always been a fan of music movies, especially Almost Famous. By music movies, I don't mean musicals, the only two I could ever sit through were Grease and Sweeney Todd, the Tim Burton version. The Rocker is no musical and strangely it isn't vulgar, which is perhaps why it works so well in the end.

The Rocker has a nice cast, a few faces you'd know and a few you wouldn't and that overall proves to be a nice mix. Rainn Wilson is an incredibly funny dude in this film and while he can't quite pull off the fake drumming look, he does a lot for his first starring role, for one, going partially nude, becoming the naked drummer. Rainn really puts his heart and soul into it, which makes this movie even more special and somewhat unique. Then we've got Christina Applegate, who plays a solid, unusually hot single mother that almost every guy in the movie wants to spend "nine months in". Interestingly, I believed her as the single mom, she actually does a terrific job playing this character. Wouldn't it suck though if she was actually you're mother, referring to her attractiveness. I never found her good looking in Married With Children, it wasn't until she stopped dressing like a skank she became nice looking.

We also have Will Arnett and Fred Armisen as two of the band members of Vesuvius, the 80's rock band, the other members I don't know and don't care about. They're all funny, full of spunk and the funnies, especially when they decided to go British. Another SNL cast member, Jason Sudeikis, is back for another film this year and is still quite funny. The three characters that stand out the most though in The Rocker, are the teenage members of the band A.D.D, Teddy Geiger, Josh Gad and Emma Stone. These guys are so interesting and easy to relate to they end up being the heart and Rainn Wilson the back-bone. And each event that happens in this film makes these characters even better and even more funny.

The Rocker is also a very smart movie, and for the most part, realistic. What I mean by smart is that it doesn't rely on vulgarisms and swearing to make us laugh, which is hard to come by in this day and age. I can't remember laughing so hard at a joke in a movie without an F-word or sex reference in front of it. Perhaps because it wasn't vulgar, it didn't attract too many people and make it to the top five at the box-office but screw that, this is a much safer film for younger people to watch, mostly. The characters in this film are fantastic and really make the film what it is. This wasn't the best film for Rainn Wilson to star as a lead in, because really, his character isn't the center of it all, mostly the great support. It begins as his story, but quickly becomes the band's story and what a story that is. It's also worthy to mention that Peter Cattaneo directed this, who directed another great film, The Full Monty, which he was nominated for an Oscar for. Here, he's just as good as ever, but won't be attracting the awards buzz. Just because a movie isn't rated R, doesn't mean it won't be any fun.

The Rocker is a great film, worth every buck and makes out to be one of the funniest films of the year. Not quite as funny as Pineapple Express but a little better than Tropic Thunder. Still, the comedy to see of this year so far is Forgetting Sarah Marshall, or Run Fatboy Run. Comedy lovers, music lovers and the people of that 80's generation who loved that style of rock and roll will have a blast with what it has to offer. And I believe that Rainn Wilson's time to truly shine, is approaching very soon.

Fish: A lot of elevators play Celine Dion- that doesn't make it right.

Fish: 1991 called, they want their teenage angst back.
Amelia: No, they just called again they want that joke back.

Films about the war in Iraq. They're as common today as the western films during John Wayne's days. Barely do we see one that we truely need to see. Last year, director Brian DePalma proved to us that this is indeed the truth, his Iraq film Redacted, was a piece of crap. That's understating it. And sure thee's the occasional documentary that really does the subject matter justice, those are what keeps us in touch with the people fighting to the end for our sake and the worlds. Yet, we can't seem to find an original stoy that can take us into the lives of the soldiers in suach a powerful and effective way, we can relate to them. Kimberly Piecre, who hasn't directed a film since "Boys Don't Cry", which was years ago, has come back with another masterpiece which is "Stop-Loss".

The story that is Stop-Loss in incredible. Though it's not without it' share of flaws, it deals with the subject matter just fine. These kind of things really happen. Stop-Loss' occur to many soldiers, the heroes who've just come back home for a bit, and are suddenly thrown back into the war without explanation. Ryan Phillippe's character, is treated this way, only unlike his friends, he rebels and tries to get out of the country and away from the memories that haunt him from the bat;es he's fought. Phillippe is brilliant. His performance is remarakble, Oscar-worthy in fact. It's a shame this film really hasn't gotten much attention, whenever I ask someone if they've heard about "Stop-Loss", they ask me, what movie that is. That really sucks, people going to see crap like Shutter and Superhero Movie for a laugh or a scare that will never hit them. If "Stop-Loss" culd've gathered a little more publicity, it would get the attention it deserves.

Besides Phillippes performance, every performance is awesome. Actors like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, Rob Brown and Abbie Cornish throw all the power they have to make you feel what this film wants you to feel. Overall, it's a very powerful film, almost every scene has something to stir the soul with. I can see quite a few people getting choked up by some of the things that happen to these men, who just wanted to be home with their families. Continuous twists and character moments are key to the survival of the story. I didn't cry though, because I never cry at movies, I'm a guy. Well................ I was THIS close to crying at I Am Legend, y'know, the dog part. You know what I'm talking about if you have a dog. Stop-Loss is the perfect film to make you want to choke on every gulp.

The one thing that really prevented this movie from being near-perfect was the lack of some character development, characters that you wanted to get to know more, but they don't give them enough screentime or they kill them. It's a shame, characters are he main point of the film overall. At first I didn't know if I liked the ending when it started, but as I continued to watch it, it began to feel right and in the end, it was the best way to go.

A lack of attention has really stopped Stop-Loss from achieving the respect it deserves. If you can't seem to find it, hunt it down and see it. It won't make you laugh or scare the crap out of you or anything like that, but you're better off watching a film that was made with real determination to get it right, and a film that helps us not forget the heroes who are fighting for what we believe in.

It's hard making a movie about a television show, especially if it isn't action oriented. And most movies these days based on T.V. shows, aren't very good. I mean "Wild, Wild West" is one of those you can use as an example, that movie completely sucked and more of its type followed. Get Smart didn't look much different from that whole formula these movies use, and it first, it wasn?t get the positive feedback we?d hoped for. But now that it's released, I can say this one's a keeper, but falls short of the "family friendly" title. Perhaps, that's one of the many reasons this one worked, among other things.

First of all, like the television show , there?s a solid chemistry between the characters. A good T.V. show has to have plenty of chemistry between the people, just as a good movie needs, and Get Smart has plenty of it. Steve Carell (as funny as ever) and Anne Hathaway really hit it off from start to finish. You have a funny man and straight man kind of comedy act here, and that works out to be the highlight of the film and gives it the boost it truly needs. There's never a dull moment to found here, since it's consistently funny and is loaded with some decent action scenes. Carell completely rocks in this one too, and even though it seems Carell is sticking to his usual routine, his routine you never get tired of. Don Adams would be proud of Carell if he could?ve seen this film, Maxwell Smart is captured wonderfully, as is Agent 99 by Hathaway. Dwayne Johnson is as good as ever, which isn't very good, but honestly, what would you expect from a guy who got famous from pretending to fight people. I find Johnson does a better job of being serious, here he has an edge of seriousness to his corny performance. Everyone else here is great, we even get to see Hymie for a bit, played perfectly by Patrick Warburton. I also got a kick out of Bruce and Lloyd , the two inventor guys, who are getting their own movie, coming to DVD soon, which should be something. A cool cameo by Bill Murray is also seen.

The story in Get Smart is strong and little mature. While it packs the humor and action into it, it really isn't one of those family films you?re kids will be exactly welcomed to. In the original series, there wasn't anyone getting killed or shot, but there?s plenty of that here, yet I feel it made the film a little more enjoyable if that sounds twisted enough. There's a bit of sexual content here, but the main throw off is the language, which is said enough for a person to remember every word. No "F" word though, so families can give props for that, but Steve Carell has become more of an icon to kids and when his latest film is rated PG in Canada or PG-13 in the U.S., we would expect something like Evan Almighty to come into play, but I guess PG-13 movies these days are little more mature than they used to be. For everyone else, this movie should be great. I love it when action and comedy can mix together. You can call it, the ultimate entertainment package. Speaking of action, the last action scene is very well done. Director Peter Segal has experience with the action/comedy genre with Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult, and takes his experience to the next level. It's fun laughing you?re head off while being at the edge of your seat.

Get Smart ends up being one of those movies you can watch again and again and still be entertained. Thanks to the terrific performances, undeniable chemistry and that slight maturity to it, it really can be one of those rare films that are worth the money. I had my doubts and I was completely wrong, thankfully. Go see it and have some fun.

I love the Bourne trilogy. Great acting, great action, great stories, great action, they truly define the espionage thriller. And I believe that they would, especially Ultimatum, would inspire other films with it's style and class. It sure didn't take long for that to happen, Taken is like "The Bourne Retirement", that's something a few people are saying, yet I don't think it's fair to completely label it that. Taken is a film in its own right, though it does take elements from the Bourne flicks when it comes to approach, but this ones got Liam Neeson and a pretty intense story to match with the action.

After this film, I'm convinced Neeson could've been Bond a while back, heck he could do it now if he wanted to. Besides his fantastic performance, he pulls off the action scenes no problem and makes it look like he's a natural at it. Pulling off martial arts stunts on 25 guys a once, shooting 50 guys at once and driving a car through a construction site with maybe three cars chasing behind him. Neeson's character Bryan, is more of a spy than assassin, he's retired though and has moved closer to his daughter, and ex-wife, and ex-wife's husband, who's extremely rich. His old buds come around asking him to tag along in protecting a singer person and Neeson does just that, with his bare hands. It was awesome! But then his daughter gets kidnapped when she travels to Paris, and well that wasn't a good idea on the bad guys behalf. A bunch of wicked action sequences follow that'll keep at the edge of your seat, and laughing at the evil peoples' misfortunes. There's some wonderful looking fights here, which doesn't show Neeson's age very well, that's a compliment. It does seem like a Bourne movie when you're watching it, yet many other things keep it up from being a copy, direct to DVD experience. Action lovers will rejoice and I think a part of this is the fact that Luc Besson, a classic action filmmaker, co-wrote it and I can see where the movie gets its edge from. But, yeah it all looks cool, the shaky camera movements make it all the more intense. Seeing Liam Neeson kicking people's butt without a lightsaber is not reason enough to see this, it's the two other important things.

The acting here is top-notch, something I've been waiting for from Neeson since Batman Begins back in 2005. I haven't see him a lot since then and I'm hoping this film will get him into the spotlight again, and not just voicing Aslan in those poorly done Narnia films. Back to his performance, it's great, while not memorable, it gets the job done, very well. He seems like a normal guy in the beginning, your typical divorced American man, but that completely changes, Jason Bourne's possible dad takes out the fists, the guns and whatever you can think of as a hand held weapon. Neeson plays it sharp steady and completely believable. There's not going to be much recognition for it, but I find it's hard to get a great performance out of an action film these days, I do not call The Dark Knight an action film, I call that one perfection. So basically, Neeson makes this movie what it is. We've got some other great acts here too, from Famke Janssen , Xander Berkeley and more notably, Maggie Grace, who actually gives a solid act. What also helps these actors do the great work that they do is the story.

The story is dark and superbly crafted. At times it'll make us smile and at times it'll send the chills down our spine. Apparently the screenplay revealed to actress Famke Janssen of how screwed up society is and she joined the UN Office against Drugs and Crime. That's not surprising. Taken really sets the bar up when it comes to a believable scenario when it's inspired by real things that occur daily. Drugs, kidnapping, prostitution and it's all under our noses. Many people are aware of this kind of evil, but we get it in an entertaining package, that wont leave us scratching our heads. The film can get intensely disturbing in some spots, the places Bryan has to go are very eerie, but not to the point where it scars. You don't have to worry about much when the film has a PG-13 rating, but kids are clearly not welcome, the action is quite violent, but I loved it. And thanks to the fact that this story is so deep, it brings the best out of the actors. There is a flaw with Taken though that hurts it a little. The story doesn't get cooking for a while and may leave viewers a little sleepy, but then when someone gets hit by a car, you're taken into a world where there's a thrill a minute. You also can't help but see this film's been quite inspired by the Bourne movies, it's polished in the same style and form. Story and acting go beyond style and so Taken doesn't stick to a now popular formula.

In the end, Taken has the makings of a classic among action lovers, Bourne lovers, Bond lovers, heck Schindler's List lovers. The movie's fun, fast and achieves a grisly feel while still being immensely gripping in the action and performances. It's coming out with a bigger release on September 19th, but I'm guessing it's still going to be hard to find. If you end up finding this film, see it. If I'm wrong and it's not hard to find, see it. I find it a little cool that we've been given another thriller that's not going to be forgotten on the shelf, I can see it becoming a cult classic in a way. And it's actually going to be a favorite among thriller lovers, no matter if you see a resemblance to the adventures of the one and only Jason Bourne. But if you look past the style, you can see the fantastic storyline and solid acts. Welcome back to the action world Liam Neeson and you've made this film worthwhile.

Ridley Scott is a kick-butt director, even at the age of 70, he's still making some of the best flicks out there, especially when he's with good ol' Russell Crowe. Last year's American Gangster was a flat out msaterpiece and one of the greatest crime films of all time, joining the ranks of Goodfellas and more recently The Dark Knight. And now, Scott tackles a topic that a lot of people are getting right these days, that dang struggle in the Middle-East and where many have failed, I'm happy to say that Ridley Scott has done it again with Body of Lies, his latest but not his greatest.

While it's not one of his greatest, Scott delivers another action packed jolt to the head. The story is very clever and keeps you on edge throughout, not slipping a secret until the smashing end. It's a touchy subject to talk about too, but Body of Lies tries to keep the content in shape without over doing it. At times, the story can get a little unreal, but how are you going to fit in the action otherwise? And I just love how it keeps you guessing. It excites the whole time, delivering fascinating characters and situations and dazzles with its smarts. You simply don't know who to trust until the unexpected happens.

DiCaprio and Crowe are known to be huge with whatever they do, but here, that doesn't exactly apply to both. DiCaprio is usually a brilliant actor who literally gets an Oscar nomination every year he's in a movie, but this time, I'm seein' it. DiCaprio is good, but good isn't good for DiCaprio. He pretty much gives us rerun of a previous performance and never seems to really stand up to our skyscrapper of expectations. Don't get me wrong, he's not bad and does immensely well in the action scenes, it's just one forgettable performance that he won't get nominated for. Crowe on the other hand is a different story. His act is fantastic and his Virginian accent is dead on. Crowe's performance also adds to the mystery of the story, wheither we should trust this guy or not. DiCaprio's character is in the middle, Crowe is on one side, the middle-easterns are on the other and Crowe keeps that situation in place with his near Oscar worthy act. The film also shines when it comes to the action sequences. While they can be a little fast paced, with all these cars smashing and AK-47's blasting, it's rough but entertaining to watch, kind of in the same spirit as Black Hawk Down, mixed with the Bourne movies. They aren't the best I've seen, but heck, they look great enough.

Body of Lies proves to be an intense and thought provoking watch that doens't really take sides in the end, which works out. It starts off with a bang and leaves you wanting more truth and more lies.

It seems like Hollywood likes making fun of its self these days. Unfortunately, that's not really a great thing. The proof: Scary Movie, Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, Superhero Movie and the soon to be released sh** fest that is Disaster Movie. They're still making fun of themselves even when they're not trying, like giving us horrible horror films like The Eye, and cheap romantic comedies like Made of Honor. I remember the days when Hollywood tried and when they failed, heck, at least they tried. And whenever they plan to mock their status, which is that they lack good ideas, they pick the worst people imaginable to show Hollywood is insecure with itself. Tropic Thunder, the latest spin on this endless trend of mockery films, could've just been called War Movie. I knew Tropic Thunder was going to be WAY above all those other films mentioned, quality wise, thanks to the talent behind it all. But I could never believe that this movie could become one of the most solid comedies of the summer and one of the best movies of the summer. Tropic Thunder proves to be a better war film than the ones of a serious venture, but let's face the fact we're not getting anything intelligent here.

Yeah, this movie is completely stupid, proud of it and that combo works to its advantage. The Mummy 3 was dumb and proud of it, but that didn't mix all that well in the end. Tropic Thunder reeks stupidity and Ben Stiller intends to offend everyone except the mentally handicapped, which he does anyways. I bet if a group of African-Americans protested, Stiller would say he wasn't offending them, Tom Cruise lovers would do the same and he'd say it's not making fun of him either. Ben Stiller really isn't trying to offend anyone except Hollywood and Hollywood welcomes that openly. Seriously, Tropic Thunder basically makes fun of all the mistakes Hollywood has made and are still making. And it makes so much sense when you're watching it, a stupidity that works. I bet the leaders of the Mentally Handicapped Leaders were killing themselves by not laughing during the Simple Jack scenes. Because writers Justin Theroux and Ben Stiller know how to blend this laugh at yourself and laugh at others formula, they achieve Stupid/Smart kind of laughs. Even the actors are laughing at themselves, doing a bunch of things that make them look like wannabes. We're getting something of the Mel Brooks variety, solid and fun, nothing life scarring like Epic Movie. So basically, don't be offended by anything this film appears to have, the filmmakers and actors alike are really just crashing their reputations, while actually boosting them in the process. We all get something out of it.

Tropic Thunder has an amazing cast, who give their all and nothing but that. We got Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Toby Maguire (briefly), Matthew McConaughey, Bill Hader, Nick Nolte, Danny McBride, Steve Coogan and Tom Cruise in his best performance EVER! The characters are the heart of the film, beyond the extreme violence and constant
f-bombers. We start off loving them and end with that feeling at the end. Ben Stiller fans will be happy with the fact that he just saved his career and now deserves to have the cute wife of his Christine Taylor. Other special things to note is Matthew McConaughey doesn't take off his shirt in this one, Toby Maguire's cameo is creepy, Danny McBride has another hit after Pineapple Express and Tom Cruise gives his most respectable performance, he's making an ass of himself. Without Cruise, Tropic Thunder would've definitely been missing something. Unfortunately for you hardcore Jack Black fans, you may not appreciate the fact that Black has one of the most hollow characters of the story, he just doesn't get as much to show as usual, so people seeing this solely for Black, you're better off waiting for the School of Rock sequel. There's also been Oscar buzz for this movie, thanks to the ever-awesome Robert Downey Jr., who's the true highlight of the movie. I thought his performance in Iron Man was solid, but nothing special. Here Downey takes his talents to the next level, doing something completely different from everything he's done. He doesn't play the perfect black man, but I don't think he was supposed to in the first place. Imagine Mr. T, but even more dramatic. Downey's act, while nothing compared to Heath Ledger's Joker, is a shaky bet that he could make it to the Golden-Globes, the Oscars are pushing it. This year brings us some of the strongest performances in very unlikely movies.

I said above that Tropic Thunder is actually better than a lot of war films out there, I wasn't comparing to masterpieces like Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket, most of the recent ones, mostly of the Vietnam genre. The action's crazy in this movie, seriously well done and keeps us laughing through all that gore. Speaking of gore, the film's full of it, so you people sensitive to seeing guts flying out of someone's stomach, look elsewhere. I love it how this film makes fun of the cliche's in war films, from the shock moments, where the man can't hear anything while carnage surrounds him. People unloading bullets without stopping, maybe that's more Rambo like, but Rambo started in Nam. You'll see great stunts and special effects the whole way through, while inhaling your popcorn in laughter.

Tropic Thunder has ended up being a huge surprise to me. Not only do the critics love it (more than Pineapple Express), but I loved it. Everyone's just having a good time, watching nonsense never done better. This is what happens when people who actually have talent make a movie like this. There's a lot to remember from this film, Tom Cruise' coolest act, Robert Downey Jr.'s superb portrayal of the bad portrayal of a black man and the list goes on. Set aside all the concerns that you may have with it, don't take it seriously and get ready to see a rock solid spoof with stupid but funny humor and intense action. Rock solid and spoof.............. that's three words I thought would never be together. See it!

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am! I'm the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude!

Battle in Seattle covers a very important event in American history, but it's message can connect with the rest of the world perfectly. Since it's such an important topic, it takes quite the talent to bring it to life and it seems that actor Stuart Townsend met that challenge in his directoral debut, and he's got a bunch of fine actors leading this powerful mesh of artists.

I'm just gonna get the negative stuff out of the way, because the good outweights the bad in this film. When watching Battle in Seattle, don't expect a whole lot of deep characters who you feel like you've known forever by the end. The film has to cover a lot of ground in under two hours, so there wasn't a whole lot of time to create memorable people. But I'll tell you why this actually isn't too bad of a thing after all, later. Battle in Seattle is also one for the patient folk, especially because of the third act. The movie is intense throughout, but it stretches just a tiny bit too long in my opinion to keep that intensity the whole movie.

I mentioned above that the fact there are a whole bunch of characters in it that we really don't know much about them, and that actually helps the movie in total. Battle in Seattle would've been slow with the narrative focusing on only one point in the conflict, and these multiple storylines not only shed more light on the subject, but it helps keep the story moving along and keeping it interesting. Each story is also extremely fascinating, especially the one of Charlize Theron's character, who represents the bystanders who did nothing wrong, but were still hurt for it. Of course, hers is even more dramatic than the casual person, but it's still quite relatable and devestating to watch. The protestors and cops stories are also great too. but the person who's caught in the middle is usually more interesting. Battle in Seattle also maintains this gripping and intense feel to it, creating an authentic feel to the experience. The way how it's filmed is tremendous in scope and extremely powerful, sometimes a little too hard to handle, to realise that happened not too long ago.

Battle in Seattle is an important film to watch, it tells of something that needs to discussed and does that with a bang. Thanks to the right director and cast, it goes farther than I could've imagined and should not be missed.

I've seen Sir Ben Kingsley in many films this year, all of them in fact. I still can't quite understand how he ended up in The Love Guru, that monstrosity to humanity did not deserve Kingsley, only deserved Jessica Alba. Then there's The Wackness, Transsiberian and War Inc., the best in War Inc., simply because he gives the best southerner accent I've ever heard. Now while being in all those films, Kingsley has done some good, besides Mike Myer's anti-fun film, but nothing memorable in the slightest, aside from the hilarious performance in War Inc, but the movie was only pretty good. This time in Elegy, Kingsley is teamed up with some more A-list actors and actresses to bring yet another independent piece. But this one has something the other ones don't have, Penelope Cruz. Together, Kingsley and Cruz, along with some great supporting acts and a deep, thoughtful story, make Elegy the best Kingsley has done this year, so far at least.

It seems that Kingsley gets to make love with all a lot of women 30 years younger than him these days, from Mary-Kate Olsen to now, Penelope Cruz. And it's interesting, not for one moment did I find this romance between these two (Kingsley and Cruz) to be creepy in the slightest, and I believe its because of the perfect approach Kingsley takes to it. Usually for other actors, this kind of relationship brought to the screen is a tough one to pull off and not many do, but not many are Ben Kingsley. What helps is the natural chemistry between the two, it's so strong, sweet and deniable, the overall foundation of the entire film, even though it isn't shown throughout. Each film I see him in, I become more impressed with Ben and believe he's still in his golden years and at this rate, will be for a long time. Penelope Cruz alone in this movie was incredible, her presence beautifies every seen she's in. Originally, I couldn't shake off my concrete thought on her, the way she was in Sahara. She choked on her words and could barely speak proper English to begin with. Even after Volver, which she was nominated for Oscar for, I still saw that little actress that was just there for show, kind of like Jessica Alba, only more talented. I'm sure Alba is talented in ?other? things, but acting isn't one them. So basically, two perfectionists only bring forth more perfection, which keeps Elegy a strong film and quite a memorable one at that. There's also a great supporting cast here to, most notably Patricia Clarkson and Dennis Hopper. Both play crucial roles, Clarkson, the interesting wife Kingsley is cheating on and Hopper, Kingsley's best friend, who does the same kind of sneaking around that his friend does. There's undeniable chemistry between them all and their conflicts and conversations all seem so authentic and without this, Elegy wouldn't have justified it's purpose. It really does take a good cast to make something work.

Every film needs a good story, without one, you're just a bucket of bones with no reason of being put together. Based upon Philip Roth's novel, Elegy is the second time screenwriter Nicholas Myer has adapted one of his books and this time, it's a much better attempt. Myer obviously has respect for this author's work and does the best he can to preserve a delicate story and bring it to a smooth running narrative, and he does just that. Myer wrote Philip Roth's The Human Stain, but that one didn't really do it for me, or many. That one also involved a younger woman, older man romance, but to me, Nicole Kidman and Anthony Hopkins couldn't pull it off. This attempt is a much better and believable look at this kind of relationship, and while it can get disturbing and uncomfortable seeing the two having sex or taking pictures of each other naked, it feels more artsy than vulgar and it that way, it works. The style director Isabel Coixet has towards this subject matter helps it be more involved with moving the story along and not in there just for something hot to watch. I tell ya, seeing someone old doing it, ain't my idea of entertainment, especially if it's a guy, but here, it's not for entertainment purposes, it's more raw emotion and overall, that's accomplished. Elegy that we're not ready to get old when we reach that point and feel that we have to do and explore things to slow down that process. In that way, some people will find this to be a story to relate to, but hopefully not too much. At times, Elegy does take a turn to the slow side of things and that's what overall hurts it from perfection. A little more speed to some of the conflicts would've helped quite a bit.

Elegy is definitely an interesting ride and it isn't afraid to do something different, good or bad or something you just can't decide on. It's a moving film, grabs your heart and gut at the same time and then let's you relax and watch the characters move on to something else, which may lead to your heart and gut being grabbed all over again. Kingsley and Cruz are brilliant alone and together and take a lot of risks to make this movie a unique experience. It's overall one of the strongest films to come out this year and will not be forgotten a long time to come.

?Beautiful women are invisible; we're so dazzled by the outside that we never make it inside.?

It's definitely been the summer of the superhero movie, that's something no one can deny. Besides Hancock, we've been given some great entertainment from the genre and more is to come. The latest is Hellboy II: The Golden Army, one of the smaller summer blockbusters in my opinion, pretty much because it wasn't all that over hyped. The first Hellboy was nothing groundbreaking, but it pleased the long time fans and the new ones to come. An interesting thing about the character is that he's quite unique, as well as the worlds around him are. Director Guillermo del Toro has really brought that vision and style to life with his vision and style. And while his second job at telling Big Red's story isn't exactly an improvement over the first, it's a great continuation with a lot of heart and some great action to top that off.

Ron Perlman is great at portraying the uncommon hero and that continues to shine in the sequel. What was so great about Hellboy in the first one was that he never thought about what he was doing, just shooting or punching any monster in site, with a good joke or two to say every time. That's what I personally love about the character and that way of Hellboy is back and better than ever in number two, probably even more this time. Perlman is a good actor and deserves a little more credit for what he's done and should really get out of just doing usual voice work for TV and movies. Selma Blair's back even better this time, acting wise and appearance wise. The fact that Liz (Blaire) and Hellboy are having a relationship, that appears to have been happening for a while, adds some good humor and excellent twists. I'd also like to acknowledge newcomer Seth MacFarlane who joins the group as Johann Krauss, the german, weird scinetist spirit thingy. MacFarlane does something completely different from the usual but great Family Guy routine, that brings most of the laughs in the movie. He was a necessary addition to the storyline and gives something Family Guy fans to look forward to in this film.

Luke Goss can also play a pretty badass and creepy bad guy. He's not better than the bad guys from the first, but he really portrays the kind of guy you would never make eye contact with. That pale white skin and dull eyes......... blah! Most importantly to mention is the brief appearance of John Hurt in the beginning of the film. It's incredibly touching and moving and would geek out the fans. The father is a character that I wished wouldn't of died in the first, but I guess it follows the comic and that's important. It felt like Willem Dafoe's and Cliff Robertson's cameos in Spider-Man 2 and was really important to put in. That scene also was very key to the rest of the movie, which works even better. As for Rupert Evans playing John Myers, good riddance, I was never a fan of the character, he was too goofy to me, though he's more than likely a comic character, but The Golden Army just wouldn't have worked as much with him, we got Seth MacFarlane to give us the good stuff, an improvement in my opinion.

Director Guillermo del Toro has a talent in bringing us a visually satisfying masterpiece, while providing a fantastic storyline to back up that very present eye candy, but in this film, one of his greatest knacks ends up being his greatest weakness. Once again, we're given some fantastic things for our eyes to take in, from creatures to action sequences. The monsters look kind of like rejects from del Toro's last film, Pan's Labyrinth, but the creepiness of the creations still work, but you just can't help notice that relativity to Pan's Labyrinth. Still, when the action heats up, the movie can't help but dazzle. The Golden Army has the better action sequences , an improvement over the first. They're on a grander scale, with bigger, more ugly monsters, even smaller, cuter monsters that go for your dentures. It all looks so good, but it seems this film has an obsession with gears, we see a lot of gears. The film' at its best when Hellboy's blowing up the monsters with his enormous arsenal of DESTRUCTION, while saving babies from turning into hot pockets for the creatures. Yet, there's a problem with number 2 that prevents it from surpassing its elder. Besides the incredibly solid first hour, del Toro seems to have trouble telling us a solid story the whole way through. It feels that some of the events don't have enough time spent on them and other parts just don't seem necessary. There's a romance here, which was a little cute and strangely reminded me of Wall-E and Hellboy's storyline were the best developed, but some things just don't feel explained enough to do them justice and the focus on the bad guy is very minimal and prevents the climax from being the best it can be. But if you want to experience some really bad story telling at it's finest, and it being a superhero flick, watch Hancock. Hellboy 2 does stand on its own a lot better than that movie, so you can give it props for that. Yet the fact that a master like del Toro wrote this isn't that acceptable and makes for a somewhat disappointing sequel overall.

In the end though, we have a great second entry with Hellboy 2. Ron Perlman's gripping portrayal of Big Red, some great humor and plot twists, and chilling villain make for a good movie. Now when you add those insanely awesome action scenes that completely make the original old news, can make this a great solid action-art piece. We have so many examples in Hollywood's history that a good film needs a good story to set it up. Superhero movies are an even greater example of that, look at the Superman movies, Christopher Reeve deserved better than that. Hellboy's back ladies and gentlemen, not all new and improved, but just as good as ever. Here's to hoping the third time will officially take it to the next level, but for now, just sit back, relax and enjoy a great sequel and an even better superhero film. At this rate, we're going to get this genre some best picture nominations, more than likely for The Dark Knight. They said that it's over for superhero movies a little while back, but dudes, it's only the beginning.

I've gotta say, I'm very impressed with Michel Gondry on this film. He fought the temptation to be too wierd with his latest film and it that way he has achieved something for his career. Now don't get me wrong, his overly-wierd film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was a great film, but then there was The Science of Sleep, a very pointless movie that ended up a hard one to love. But this is actually one of the most normal Jack Black films I've seen in a while, aside from the stupid dramas and romantic comedies he's done! Then again, he wasn't normal in those either!

I really enjoyed Be Kind Rewind, it had so many elements that make a good film. Humor, good story, good acting and that little touch of Gondry, made it a great picture, short of an amazing film. You most definately won't see this at the Oscars next year, unless this year turns out to be the worst year for movies in history, then you'll see this film nominated for Best Picture! Danny Glover plays his casual role of the old wise guy, but it suits his role. He's most definatley not lacking talent, since his role in Shooter was masterfully played. Jack Black is still crazy, but more interesting in the sence of character, his best character since Carl in King Kong in my opinion. But it was a nice surprise having Mos Def playing a very down to earth role, the best I've seen him do.

It was great watching these amateur guys make their own movies! Ghost Busters, Rush Hour 2 and many more are are made for your enjoyment. (ha,ha The Lion King) I don't know if I liked the ending as much as the rest of the movie though. It was emotional and interesting, but didn't give you enough to give the direct fate of the characters. It pulled off a "No Country for Old Men". I guess it made you think, and that's what's important, and in that way, it was beautiful.

In the end, Be Kind Rewind is half-way to being a gem. It's not laugh out loud funny like Juno, but there's just enough there to make it more worthy than just a mention. It also serves as a pretty good film for younger people, it's not filled with sex stuff or swearing throughout, though those are the usually the best. For Be Kind Rewind to not have those two elements and it pulling off a very good comedy is indeed an accomplishent for Gondry and filmmaking in total.

2008 starts off with a bang!!!

This was one of those films that probably won't become an instant classic, but it's a cool little film that many can learn from. Anton Yelchin does a great job at playing the big shot Charlie and keeps the movie moving throughout, but the performance I was most impressed by was Robert Downey Jr.'s performance, as he plays the troubled principle of the school Charlie attends. Downey brings his best performance that isn't just like his other performances, he brings something different which is great. Sadly, he'll be going back to his old ways in Iron Man so treasure this performance. The film ultimately teaches you that everyone has a purpose and it's in the least preachy form. At first it seems like Charlie is just throwing a bunch of BS at people, but it helps these people find out who they are. Then when things get out of hand, Charlie realizes himself that he's also just a kid, he can't be this icon to these people forever. Like I said, this film will not likely become a classic, but it's a good film to check out for sure. It was yet another honor to able to see this film before it's release and let others know that it's a good idea to see this. I "prescribe" it. I truely do believe that many people who see the movie and find out something about the world and themselves, because of Charlie Bartlett.

Bond is the man, that's something we've always known, ever since Sean Connery became the super spy in Dr. No. Now we're down to Daniel Craig, who in my opinion, is one of the best Bonds. His portrayl of the character in Casino Royale was amazing, making Pierce Bronson old news. In Quantum of Solace, he returns to the role for a second time and he's just as strong as ever, maybe a little moody, but anger's driving him in this one. But the story behind him, isn't as much this time. Quantum of Solace can be as random as the title and while Casino Royale had a deep, fascinating story, Quantum of Solace takes the path of your typical action movie, maybe a little above that. It definately isn't a bad story by no means and there's plenty of moments to show Bond's cool edge, but not much of anything else. It's a revenge story..... Bondified and it ain't bad. Marc Forster, who's a top notch storyteller, doesn't give us his strongest effort, but that's what can happen in the big leagues, all for the buck. Perhaps Forster will know better for next time when he has a major blockbuster in his hands. As the film moves along, the story begins to make a whole lot more sense, but just take a little too long for that. But where Quantum of Solace hits the mark is where the Bond films usually do. The action and the girl. Let me say that this movie has some of the best action sequences I've seen this year, if not the best, but for someone reason, some of them feel stripped right out of a Bounre movie. Has James Bond finally started borrowing it's style from other movies? Not quite, the action scenes are just more epic. The beginning has this great chase through the city that sure sets the rest of the film's intensity and an ending filled with explosions and tons of drama. It's packed with car chases, on foot chases, plane chases, well, every single chase you could think of and boy are a wonder to behold. The action is what grabs your attention and never lets go, too bad there's the 30 minute pause with no action, the rest of it is stuffed with the thrills and chills. I never figured Marc Forster for an action director, but after seeing Quantum of Solace, he has the makings of being one of the best out there. Be prepared to be blown out of your seat, the intensity may overwhelm you. On another note, I didn't particualarly find the bad guys all that great in this entry, which does take away from the attention grabbing factor Bond films are known for having. An enviromentalist named Dominic Greene, doesn't sound quite as menacing or cheesy as previous foes in the rogues gallery, but he's just enough to keep that precious attention through most of the ride. And I loved Ogla Kurylenko as the latest girl, something James 'seems' to get every movie. But I like Ogla more than the last film's girl, she's more attractive and takes an even bigger part in the action. There's techinically two Bond girls in this, one Camille (Kurylenko) and Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton), but Fields is more of a forgettable one, while Ogla is in the ranks of classics such as Ursula Andress. Did I mention Olga was attractive? Anyways, the girls are here, one does more for Bond than the other, same goes for the audience. So, because of the jaw dropping action and great girl sidekick, Quantum of Solace rises above its plain story and big budget style into something that isn't one of the best Bond adventures but definately not one of the worst. For the people who didn't like this, they'd probably say something like, "This Bond left me shaken, not stirred." I call it "Casino Royale without the clever card games." or "Quantum of Awesomeness!" Whatever the case, just go see Bond kick some butt, for the twenty-second time.

I was one of the many who only kinda like the first Madagascar, just something about it just didn't work, for me, I felt the story was just a little to week and the humor a little lacking the punch. But now, let's put the old movie behind us and get ready for the all new, all new improved Madagascar 2: Escape to Africa, that's all about the strong story and laughs that have a punch. Yes, Escape to Africa is definately a stronger entry in this soon to be huge franchise, because it reaches more important levels of depth than its clunky predecissor. The one good thing the second one is missing from the first one was the apparent best friend thing between Alex and Marty. It's somewhat here, but not to a satisfactory level. But the story in Escape to Africa is terrific, allowing us to know more about these characters we end up really caring about, and bringing us new characters to care about. Bernie Mac voices Alex's father Zuba and he does a stellar job or portraying the father figure, which is a great thing, since this is one of his last movies. Alec Baldwin does a great job portraying the bad guy Makunga, I really enjoy Alec Baldwin when he's the bad guy and here, he's just as good as ever. The regulars have improved too, especially with Ben Stiller he brings a whole lot of depth to the Alex character this time around. Remember when Ben Stiller used to suck, well not anymore, after Tropic Thunder and now this, it's been a year of prosperity for the actor. Another great thing about the sequel is that there's more variety to the humor, the penguins supplying the adult the humor, which will fly by kids and the everyone else provides the humor for everyone. And because it's consistently funny, there' really never a dull moment to be had. I also appreciated the animation a little more this time around, because it's a little more unique and fitting than a whole lot of other animated flicks out there. Sometimes, it can be beautiful. Now, with all those things thrown together, you get a more loveable, more fantastic Madagascar film. It still isn't in the league of Wall-E or Kung Fu Panda, but this time, it's not too far. See Escape to Africa for yourself, and if not you, for the kids, because more than likely, you'll like it just as much as they do, if not more.

Now this one was a surprise. How can I describe Will Ferrell? Perhaps a one trick act that went pretty far. It's amazing what SNL can do for you........ and what it can't, I mean look at Darrell Hammond, guy does a good Tony Soprano and John McCain, but when your highlight in your film career is playing Jack Swallow in Epic Movie, you haven't done much in your life. But Will Ferrell's been pretty much playing the same guy since Elf, I mean after Elf, he hasn't charmed much since then. It's interesting though, we're always seeing Ferrell as a big headed, clearly stupid guy you wouldn't want to have a barbecue with, he'd probably throw the grill on the ground, stomp his feet on the ground and scream ?I?m So Hungry! Why Don't You Love Me?!?, then roll around on the ground in a fit. Yet, we'd still be laughing, a lot. It just goes to show how we're so desperate for an easy laugh, when we're rushing to a Will Ferrell movie. John C. Reilly on the other hand is extremely talented and funny, a lethally good combination. I must say though it's a shame that his debut lead performance was in Walk Hard, but at least he got his big break. I've seen this guy in a lot of movies and never getting the credit he truly deserves. Now let's add this two guys together, Mr. Repeat but disturbingly entertaining, and Mr. Talented, for the second time since Talladega Nights and you get Step Brothers, one of the biggest surprises of the year, simply because it has the pieces right.

I didn't expect much from Step Brothers and for good reason. The poster made it look like an instant rip off of your time, perhaps having a few laughs here and there, like another Semi-Pro. Thanks to those low expectations, that did the trick, Step Brothers caught me off guard. Director Adam McKay is a good bringer of laughs, he brought us Anchorman and Talladega Nights, but I didn't have faith that e could pull this one off, the concept was lame, extremely lame. Leave it to McKay to make the best of a story not worth telling. Step Brothers is a fest of funniness, with a few dry spots here and there, but humor is present enough to be worth our attention in the end. We've got two grown men acting like 10 year olds and it doesn't get any better than that believe me. The fact that these guys actually look old makes it better, more comedic to watch. The humor is also unique, not brilliant but heck, everyone was laughing very hard. It's also a great mix of realism and typical Will Ferrell style and it literally never gets old. We thought this was old years ago, but nope. Surprisingly, Step Brothers has a solid story that's continuous in itself and ends on a sharp note that really brings out the gold this film gives. Now, the movie's not much compared to Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but heck, not many comedies at all are comparable to that masterpiece. Step Brothers also isn't as good as Adam McKay's Anchorman or Talladega Nights, who cares though. Like I said, it's good to go in with the expectations you were going with in the beginning.

Will Ferrell does try, we can give him that. In Step Brothers, it really shows that because Ferrell evenly brings half the jokes and does some new things to show he's still got it. Singing was good, playing the drums with his testicles, depends what kind of person you are. John C. Reilly does an excellent job too, playing a more normal role than usual....... he makes some interesting career choices. These two, have a fantastic chemistry, the perfect dysfunctional step brothers, who work together to give us something to laugh about. When Ferrell does something funny, it triggers the another funny from Reilly. They make the best with what they have, they maybe make it even better. It probably helps that Ferrell, Reilly and McKay wrote the screenplay, to know when they're going of course with their words. The fact that they worked on the screenplay together proves even more that they're a great team and should be a team more often. This is also a Judd Apatow film, I find he's at his best when he's producing, not co-writing and here's another movie to add to his resume that'll make us forget........ um....... Tillbit Draylor? I also got to give props for the freaking awesome and unexpected cameo by the amazing Seth Rogen. Now I'm even more thrilled for Pineapple Express, the comedy I've been waiting for for the entire year. This will last me until that one comes out.

Step Brothers is a great turn out for a film that really looked bad. The days when comedies were actually funny and we weren't cheated out of our money is long gone, kind of like horror films. But leave it to Judd Apatow to produce, and not co-write, some of the best comedies that deserve the audience it needs. I hope to see Ferrell, Reilly, McKay and Apatow together again in the future, not for a Step Brothers sequel though, that ship should never be sailed. By the way, ships as in boats are a big part of this film, one of the large parts of the story. I just thought I'd throw that in. Also, if you're quick and trying to get out of the theater as soon as you can and find nothing great about this movie, stay during the credits, the best is only yet to come. I can say the same thing about Will Ferrell's career........ hopefully, definitely John C. Reilly.

Dale Doback: Martha Stewart, Oprah, your wife. You gotta f**k one, kill one, and marry one, who do you pick?

Haha, that's the good stuff!

Card games are a lame concept to base a movie upon. There's really nothing intense or eye-catching to behold while seeing big-shots deal a deck or two. Look at last years film "Lucky You", which was based on poker. It had a fantastic director, Oscar-winning screenwriter and a great group of actors. What've could've gone wrong? It was boring, flat, character wise, story wise, everything wise. It just goes to show that this type of film is incredibly risky to make, even if you're someone like Steven Spielberg or Clint Eastwood. But something in 21, sets it apart from all those other card dealing epic films out there, it has style.

21 takes the game of Blackjack and makes it look cool and complex. Instead of just seeing these people play the game, it adds flare with fast-moving roles, card tricks and secret messages that are so interesting it's like watching Rambo kill everything around him, well maybe not that great, but it's better than watching a really played out High school Musical number. The characters help with it too. They're very round in their dimension with a twist or two to each of them. Especially Kevin Spacey's character. Each performance is good too, but I'm not quite sure about Jim Sturgess' yet. He didn't quite pull his American accent off too well and his narration during the film I felt was incredibly weak and unnecessary, not because of Sturgess actually, the lines were just shallowly written. Overall though, it's a smart movie. It handles the transformation of Sturgess' character perfectly from a brilliant man to a selfish Blackjack player.

At first, I didn't really like Laurence Fishburne's character all that much. It may take a while for audiences to get his character, but he becomes a very important part in the story. It would've been nice too have seen some more Kevin Spacey in the film. His character is the most compelling and deep, but his screen time just isn't enough. But seeing him throw a hissy fit, was well worth it all and makes up for that loss towards the film.

There really needed to be more scenes with Sturgess' character and his mother. They had the proper chemistry that makes a good mother and son team, and each scene is great and has a great point to each. More scenes with his geeky pals would've nice as well. The moments of them hanging out and talking about random stuff was really a joy to watch, especially when they were talking about dating and such. Sacrifices had to amde though, to keep the films flow going strong, but yet, I still saw a gap or two in there that needed to be filled.

The story works very well and makes it the enjoyable film it is. It presesnts with some great characters, moments and some really nice twists that would even surprise Alfred Hitchcock. Without the properly structured story, this film would fall flat on its face, which is the case with all films, except Transformers. That film really didn't have a story to it, but the intense eye-candy made sure that it would cover that up. It's a shame so many people fell for that film. This movie knows what it's talking about. Nothing seems too far fetched until the end, and the end was great otherwise. The pieces fit together well, but I still am having trouble believing any of this would've actually happened.

21 is half Drama and half comedy. There was so much humor in the movie, I laughed more than I did at films like Walk Hard and Drillbit Taylor. 21 achieves a comedic effect that really works and keeps audiences tuned into the film. If you're a fan of character-moments and overall humor, 21's perfect.

Where Lucky You failed in, 21 has succeeded. I've got to give a hand to director Robert Luketic, for achieving the near impossible, making cards look cool on the big-screen. He's created something not only Blackjack players or game card players to enjoy, but all film-goers everywhere with something for everyone. You're lucky I didn't say: " 21 is an Ace" or "a full house". That would be incredibly lame, unlike the movie.

I'm still in shock at this moment, at what I feel towards this film. It's been getting crap by critics and people alike. Of course, it's peoples instant feeling to feel hate against it, after all, it is Eddie Murphy and director Brian Robbins teaming up again after that train wreck Norbit last year. Yes, the expectations were not high for poor Dave, Eddie Murphy's multiples roles never seem to make a good movie, perhaps with the exception of The Nutty Professor. The box-office even shows the support with this film, it didn't even make the top 5. So when I went to see this, I was brought some shades and some ear plugs, the possibility of my eyes burning and my ears aching was very high, unlike the positive rep for the film. But interestingly enough, I didn't even need to use the glasses or plugs and by saying that, I might be the only person in the world complementing Meet Dave, besides the Film Advisory Board, it's their job to make movies look good.

Eddie Murphy has had it rough theses past few years, besides his Oscar-nomination but not really anyone believes he deserved that. It's mostly Murphy's fault though, his movies choices have been awful. Pluto Nash and Norbit have to be the worst, Norbit just coming after his Oscar nom, and the negative criticism he garnered from that one and the razzies he won, were well deserved truth be told. As much as I want to keep trashing Norbit, I call that one officially a thing of the past, Meet Dave is a major step above Norbit for both the director and Murphy. I really like the concept of Meet Dave because it serves the film well. While not brilliant, it gets the job done and provides a different set of laughs. It?s a comedy, with a bit of sci-fi on the side, which is something we really haven't gotten a lot of since Galaxy Quest. Aside from genre, the film has a solid story, material that the actors can work off of and bring on the jokes that aren't racial or suggestive. Norbit (I keep on coming to this BS) was incredibly offensive and wasn't even funny in doing that either. Meet Dave gives us something to laugh about and we don't get a whole lot of comedies like that anymore from the land of Hollywood. We also don't get a whole lot of family friendly stuff anymore, something parents can appreciate their kids watching. Meet Dave is another great family film that just happened to come along the same time as another great family flick, Journey to the Centre of the Earth. This truly is a good time for families packing in the theaters, we got Kung Fu Panda, Wall- E, Space Chimps coming up, that's just naming a few. Meet Dave can be as appropriate as a Pixar film, without that animated charm of course. Compared to a Pixar film, this movie's nothing , Wall-E's the best out there at the moment, but Meet Dave's worth checking if you've seen Wall-E already. (Which I'm sure is everyone.)

Meet Dave also achieves an emotional tone to it, thanks to the performances. There's good chemistry between characters here, which helps develop the humor. Murphy plays this role perfectly, though it's nothing deep or astonishing, but what would you expect from a movie like this? Elizabeth banks was excellent here and pretty excellent looking to top that. The crew in Dave were like something out of Star Trek, mixed with the gang from Hogan's Heroes. There's some good ol' funny scenes that come from the gang m some touching as well. It?s interesting, a character as cardboard like as Dave wouldn't usually go far alone, but when he's alongside the right people, the character flourishes into something loveable and, dare I say it, human. It was also cool seeing Mike O'Malley on the big screen again, I haven't seen this guy since Yes, Dear got cancelled. That was a time of sadness for few, a time of "nobody cared" for many. His character and Marc Blucas's character, together the cop duo, really don't add much to the film, they're kind of useless, yet not that bad. I just know the funny moments are when Dave is around, trying to be human or using his powers to stop criminals by throwing them into produce. Funny, there was a character like this in You Don't Mess with the Zohan.


I'm still wondering guys, why did I like this movie so much? Maybe because Murphy's dual role finally works, the good characters and touching story, maybe it's because it's actually funny, something we're not getting from that ex-Beverly Hills cop. Obviously it's all of those things and it's reason enough to see it again. I'm an odd one, and I'm happy to say that Meet Dave is Eddie Murphy's best film in a while. That may not be saying much when you look at his resume, but it's worth a shot to check it out, of you're willing to take the risk.

From what I've seen so far, it seems almost impossible to justify a Dr. Seuss tale in the form of film. This decade, we had two Dr. Seuss inspired films released, How The Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat, oh boy. Grinch wasn't very great and Cat was beyond abysmal, but there's something in common between these two films, Besides the fact that each stars a highly paid celebrity who fails at the job, Cat and Grinch are both in lve action. Whenever I watched these, which I regret doing, there never seems to be the feeling there, that this is something Seuss created, this is his masterpiece we're watching, not just another adaptation or other version. That's why Horton Hears a Who is something to treasure, it goes back to the roots of the creation.

Animation is the best way in bringing a Seuss story to life, there's no better way. When I watched this film, I was being told the story in the way I read it when I was little. Because the original story was illustrated in a way live action could not bring, this film is a great tribute and worthy to the attention of any Seuss fan, young or old. The animation's nothing groundbreaking but neither was Seuss' artwork, it all fits so well and looks so faithful to the classic. Horton is indeed a breakthrough for filmmakers trying to adapt from the difficult to adapt.

Another highlight from Horton is actually the cast of voice actors. It's actually the greatest bunch of actors ever in an animated film! Having Jim Carrey as Horton the elephant and Steve Carell as the mayor of Whoville would've been great enough, but you got Amy Poehler (yeah!) Jonah Hill (yeah!) and Seth Rogen (YEAH YEAH!) These guys are all great, very great, they add so much personality to this film, as well as Carol Burnett as the cruel kangaroo. But two of the most noticeably great performances were done by a pair of people who played an odd couple in Hot Rod. Will Arnett and Isla Fisher are the greatest. Let's talk Arnett first, playing a Vlad the Vulture with a random russian or latverian accent, it's so funny every time you hear him, he's the greatest side villian ever! Then there's Isla Fisher, who plays Dr. Mary Lou Larue, a pretty wacky person with a wacky accent. In fact it was so odd, I didn't know it was Isla until the credits and I go, "Whoa, Isla Fisher." With a great performance from her in Horton and a succesful one in Definatley, Maybe, Isla has the makings of being a very successful actress. The only voice that isn't really worth the mention was Jesse McCartney as JoJo, the mayor's emo child, because he says only one line! Then again, he was an emo character.

I could really feel that friendship between Horton and the mayor, even though they couldn't see eachother. Horton takes his mission to save Whoville very seriously and since he's not considered the smartest guy around, he gerts persecuted quite a bit. But because of this commitment, he proves to be a great character, one for children and adults to admire. You can tell the mayor loves all 96 of his children, his wife and the people of Whoville, and goes through a bunch of crap for it too. But both the mayor and Horton work together to try and make everything better, even when no one believes in them.

Dr. Seuss would be proud of this retelling, but he's lucky he didn't have to see Grinch or Cat, because he would end up one angry person. But it pleases me to know that not all of his stories have fallen victim to the people who try to fit it for the big screen. I'd love to see this film nominated at the oscars, though it isn't quite perfect. The script does tis best to stay faithful to the story without stretching it too far, but sadly does that at times. Perhaps the Dr. Seuss books shouldn't be even made into movies, but logic doesn't always stop people. So listen up, if Hollywood keeps on making films about Dr. Seuss' stories, make them a lot like Horton Hears a Who. It's style. it's approach to the material is near fantastic.

Keira Knightley is quite the wonder of an actress. I haven't really considered her to be appealing, but after seeing The Duchess, that;s changed a bit. After watching Knightley in all of those historical romance and epics, I get the feeling she was born in the wrong time period, like I think that Angelina Jolie should have been born in 40's/50's, because she looks so right in those types of clothes. That's the case with Knightley, who's better playing out history than acting in roles that take place in our day and age. She has that knack for being over the top, calmed down, she's useless. And I love it how these types of films bring the best out of her and it's something she should stay a little closer to. Now, The Duchess isn't this year's Atonement mainly because the story isn't as solid and clearly isn't as epic. But there are two things make The Duchess the good film it is, the art direction and acting. This film is beautiful to look at with something stunning to see at every corner, capturing the essence to the time period. It's also bright, vibrant and full of life, whether inside a mansion or outside in the country, it's a gorgeous array of eye candy. The clothes are extravagant and add to this perfection in art, also making you glad that we are far from those days. To match the set pieces is the acting, which is, dare I say, almost perfect. The two actors worthy of mention are Knightley and Ralph Fiennes, who are used to doing this kind of film and show off their stuff, in more ways than one. Their perfectionism could possibly lead them to the Oscars next year, but the costumes and set decoration are more than likely to go their than the acting. The story though, can be sometimes everywhere and is far more brutal than you think. The previews make this film look like one that celebrates women hood and the power of the female spirit. But The Duchess explores the ways on how it's crushed and defiled by men, and sometimes it can get a little uneasy to watch. In the end though, the story is fairly tragic and thought-provoking and you won't know whether it's a happy ending or sad ending, it's a little bit of both. The reason though to see The Duchess is for the brilliant acting and brilliant set pieces to match. But with beauty, comes a price and this film perfectly shows this sad fact of life.

Wow Mr. Lee, you've given me quite a mixed bag here. I'm really having trouble on what I thought about this film, so many ups, so many downs, it's hard to stop all my ideas from racing into eachother and colliding to make new ideas. From the beginning, I knew I was excited for this movie, because for one reason, Spike Lee was directing it, a man with great talent, but with a BIT of an ego that gets in the way. Then, there was the fact that this was a WW2 film, and I highly appreciate these types of movies, I even like Windtalkers if you can believe. Also there was that soft spot for the telling of the story of men that truely deserve to be recognized for their sacrifices in the name of freedom. Now, I've finally seen Miracle at St. Anna, and with the critics bad press and peoples mixed reactions out of my mind, I'm gonna find out if I liked this film or kinda liked it, most certainly not hating it.

Miracle at St. Anna is epic, not Saving Private Ryan epic, more along the lines of Thin Red Line epic, which is still quite epic. It doesn't rely on the battle sequences to keep it alive, all thought the battle sequences here are fantasitc, not copying off previous war pictures. I enjoy realism within battle scenes and Miracle at St. Anna does my craving justice, not overly brutal, but not too tamed, just the right amount of realism. A great cinematic scope and terrific sound effects help in the making of these edge of your seat moments throughout the film. The acting is also a solid note here, it feels mightly realistic from the black soldiers and Germans, but can occasionally get over the top with the Italians. But overall, the acting serves as a strong element of the movie. Particularly, Joseph Gordon Levitt stole the show, even though he was only in for ten minutes at the beginning. Levitt is a stunning actor, throwing away his past TV career and becoming an amazing performer, it's just a shame he couldn't of been more frequent throughout the entire thing, his character would've added a little more and tighter narrative. Miracle at St. Anna doesn't have trouble making us feel we're in the time is was set in, the movie looks stunning and is full of beautiful candy, particularly in Tuscanm where there's a whole lot of Italian wonders to behold. I also appreciate the fact that we feel something for this story, we get to experience a lot of perspectives and get on quite the emotional rollercoaster. There characters become important to us, even if they go astray, but the film puts us there right there with them, and that's a powerful thing. The length may test some audiences, or immerse them even better. It grabs you from the beginning with intense fire fights and since the ending is so well handled, you may forgive some of the rotten stuff in between. In other words, it starts with a bang and ends with a bang, the rocky road forms in between those two points.

Now, no film is perfect and Miracle at St. Anna is an example of that statement you just can't escape. Those imperfections start right off the bat with the damn annoying score that can completely ruin the certain tones most of the scenes require. The score comes in some of the worst times and can sound so inapropriate, set to the situations that are occuring. A completely different score may indeed improved this film's final cut. The narrative can also get a little off cousre at times, confusing at viewer every once in a while, or preventing them from caring. I really believe that Levitt's reporter character would've helped keep the story is shape, cutting off some of the confusion. Some people are complaining about the editing of the film, but I found that to be an extremely low fault here, a problem that may have only occured a few times. What really got me was that Spike Lee edge that "I need to be better than everyone else!" That causes a real problem at times, shifting the story from sensible to non-sensible. And those scenes with nudity were completely worthless and prevents others from enjoying this movie. Dudes are gonna dig them, but will later realize they meaned nothing.

It seems overall that I enjoyed Miracle at St. Anna, only not to the extent I was hoping for. Spike Lee does give us an emotional and sometimes thrilling picture that may not be accepted by everyone, but the by the people who look deep into the heart of this story that's reminding us of the casulities of not only war, but racism these men faced. Open your mind with this one, it takes a lot of understanding, and stomach to bare all the events that happen to the people.

Romantic Comedies (or Rom Coms) have become so cheesy and disgustingly predictable these days, yet we still are in love with them. Of course there's crap like 27 Dresses and Made of Honor, but then the so bad they're good kind, like Fool's Gold and What Happens in Vegas. Wouldn't it be interesting if someone in this day and age, could make a Rom Com that defies the law these movies have set and actually be worth our attention? It seems that writer/director Adam Brooks ( a Rom Com veteran writer) has done just that. Thanks to the sharp dialogue, fantastic performances and strong story, "Definitely, Maybe" is one of those few movies that you don't feel like you've been ripped off after seeing it. While Ryan Reynolds gives a realistic representation of the young father figure and womanizer (in some way), the best comes from Isla Fisher, who's becoming more and more of a strong actress every film I'm seeing her in. She definitely not the weird one of the bunch, everyone is a little off the wall in this one. But she plays the girlfriend that acts like a pal and that's what most guys wished their girl friends would do, to an extent of course. Abigail Breslin plays a sweet little girl, if not sometimes obnoxious but she's still shinning like Little Miss Sunshine. The story here is also very strong here and doesn't impact us with heavy material that can throw off the balance of the film. There's a lot of odd things, like the fact that all the girls are bisexual (well maybe not Isla Fisher's character), but it all carries over into something crafted with care and well thought out. The whole thing is quite funny too, a smart kind of funny. We don't get people slipping on wet floors or anything like that, it's mostly dialogue that wins the show.

"Definitely Maybe" will be remembered as one of those movies that gave you a good feeling at the end and that you actually laughed when watching it. It starts off great and ends even better (because he ended up with the girl I wanted him to be with). Though it's not perfect and isn't in any sense a "masterpiece", you can appreciate the fact this isn't a film trying to gather money from your wallets in a cheap a fashion. Now I'm sure a bunch of people have already seen it, but if you haven't, check it out.

When I first heard about War Inc. , I heard it was a political satire film with Hillary Duff in it. It pretty much sounds like a concoction of lethal elements that are fed to you visually. This film ended up getting bashed by critics and viewers everywhere, stating that it's too much and not enough at the same time, whatever that means. Yet that's not the case with this one, surprisingly, it works better than most of other films of its kind.

Now War Inc. doesn't even stand close to few other political satire films, like Dr. Strangelove, but so many things about it make it stand out. Starring and co-written by John Cusack, Cusack's role is about a troubled hit-man who's hired by the president (Dan Aykroyd) of this place called Turaqistan, to assassinate a middle-eastern oil minister. He gets continuosly harrased by the woman he's working with (Joan Cusack), has deep conversations with a bride-to-be turaqistanian pop-star (Duff) and keeps on getting crazy flashbacks of him with is ex-boss (Kingsley). At first the films seems like a complete mess, but this all becomes cleared up later in one of the most insane endings I've ever seen. Sometimes satireism doesn't work in the films favor, but there are many things that clean that up.

John Cusack is brilliant in this movie. Of course he's done more likeable roles in Grace is Gone and Martian Child, but here, he's downright funny. One of the best scenes (which is reason enough to see this movie) is where he kills 10 guys in 10 seconds. The beginning is a great scene in showing Cusack's talent of killing, but it only gets better. Joan Cusack is another wonderful performance, she's more pshycopathec than anything, but that nuttiness brings more to the oddness this film projects so well. Oh and the Cusacks aren't brother and sister in this one, at least I think they aren't, there was so many twists towards the end you couldn't count them. Hillary Duff is quite excellent in this movie. I never though I'd say that, but that just goes to show that there's something special about War Inc. Her character is likeable, interesting and very deep. Duff seems like a spoiled brat already, so this role was perfect for her and she truely does the best she can. Lizzie McGuire is truely dead. My favorite performance in this film, one of the best of this year so far, is Ben Kingsley as Cusacks old boss, Walken. A complex actor like Kingsley, mixed with an over the top southerner accent and the most unbelieveable situations, I'm still laughing at the thought of that character. The scenes between him and Cusack are incredible, powerful and intensley funny. The whole movie's pretty much funny, sometimes it goes too far though. Not in an offensice away (though some people will be offended), but to the point where it's kinda disturbing, and that's where the film doesn't work, besides a sometimes disproportioned story.

War Inc. also has a lot of things for a lot of people. Action lover, you'll be at the edge of your seat. Comedy lover, you'll laugh more than at films like Drillbit Taylor. Erotica lover, I'll leave that for you to do whatever you want to do with those. There's a huge variety of elements that may not impress a tough critic, but on an entertainment level, you're better off watching this one than Speed Racer or Prince Caspian. We need the occasional over the top movie with the big twists at the end, we got that with Shoot Em' Up last year, one of the best of it's genre.

In the end, this will be one of those movies that'll be forgotten about for a while, then a few laters will be found again and enjoyed by a bigger audience. It has so much good in it and so much to offer, it's easy to forget about those flaws people will view differently. A breakthrough performance by Duff, another interesting performance by both Cusacks and my favorite character Ben Kingsley has brought to life, makes War Inc. a movie I'll recommend my friends to see when it comes to dvd. The theater may not be the best place for someone to see this, it's too much of a mixed bag to pay admission, but try to see it anyways, it may be a lot of fun on a rainy day.

It took me a while to get a hold of this one, but when I finally did, it ended up being worth the wait. The Bucket List is a powerful film that showcases the human spirit in its purest form, when you're living ife to the fullest. Nicholson and Freeman make up this movie for the most part, but the excellent story makes it more than just an old timer extravaganza, like Space Cowboys. And get ready to cry because the emotional scenes pack a real punch. The Bucket List isn't a perfect movie by no means, but you're better off seeing two actors still in their prime, doing something for the family to enjoy and doing a darn good job at it too.

Man, Kat Dennings is a face I want to see more often in the movies. She's among a whole load of talent that makes Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist something to enjoy at least one. It's great seeing Michael Cera in a lead role at last, but for me, he was as important as anyone else in this movie. Ari Graynor pretty much stole the show with this one, her and Andy Samberg's awesome cameo. The film's roughly desined for youth audiences, there's not much for the middle age man to enjoy, unless they like to mope about their golden years. Nick and Norah is a smart film, in the same spirit as Juno, only much bigger and not as good. It's an interesting ride around New York, seeing these great characters interact and change as the film progresses. Suprisingly, there's really no music in this film, besides a band playing once and a refrence to The Cure. At times, the movie has trouble getting around to the next act, like an actual ride in New York, but that's sadly an imperfection that could've been fixed in the editing room. But the clever humor and strong characters help smoothen the rough edges. This is one to see with your friends, alone, you would find this to be a less than funny outting at the movies. Nick and Norah is a simple, but good time that should be shared with some pals. I'm still waiting for Michael Cera's actual lead role though, hope we get that soon.

I've got to get something out of the way. People are screaming things like: "This movie isn't Oscar worthy!" Let's look at the basics. First, this is a Canadian film, it wouldn't be considered by the Academy unless it was a foreign language film, or a Canadian film made in the US. Second, I don't think filmmaker Paul Gross had any intention of this being a film the world would fall in love with and would win every single Oscar possible. I think Gross just wanted to show that Canadians kick butt and that our film industry has the potential to be great, and you know what, he achieves that goal with Passchendaele, mostly. While there's certainly a number of imperfections and that stupid "Canadian attempt to be different than everyone else" film element is in there (hey I'm Canadian so I'm allowed to say that), but overall, it's a movie that does more right than wrong. Passchendaele is a beautiful film that really sets you well in the time period, in the from the gorgeous city of Calgary to the muddy ruins of Passchendaele, the set pieces are a fantastic feet for a 20 Million dollar film, and the sharp cinematography brings out the best of these sets. Some sights are pretty and othere will make you flinch, either way, it powerfully portrays the era in a way that'll knock your socks off. Then there's the excellent performances, not by Paul Gross unfortunately, but by everyone else, they're literaly pitch perfect. Gross goes into the cliche territory with the "My mamma died of a broken heart" kinda crap. Then there was that scene where he mocked the whole Jesus died for us thing, and it didn't even fit into the conversation, it was as if he was just trying to make a random statement and did a LAME job, BEYOND LAME. I guess Gross has still got some growing up to do, but he's gonna getter better with the more he makes. Everyone else is fantastic and make the film more than it could've been. Meredith Bailey particularly gave the best of it all, she was cute and played her role with class. Probably the best thing to come of Passchendaele is the sensational battle sequences at the end, which truely capture the terrors of war. Seriously, it can get as disturbing as Saving Private Ryan, and that's an accomplishment. You're going to see some pretty disguisting stuff so you might want to skip the popcorn, but the battle scenes are played out wonderfully, showing the great courage Canadians had during those dark days. Sadly, Passchendaele makes some really bad moves that prevent it from greatness. Some of the undertones the film has don't get carried out the well in the end, poor editing hurts it even more, making the end, kind of a mixed bag, semi-satisfying for the most part. And sometimes this movie overkills on the sex. I mean, would you think two people would have sex in a shed, in the middle of a bunch of soldiers, right beside a battlefield, where they could easily get caught or blown up? It can really get off the seriousness and into the cheese zone, but the romance is fine overall. In the end, Passchendaele goes beyond where most Canadian films have gone before, into Hollywood quality territory. It's something that proves that Canada can make an actual good movie, and there's still hope for the film industry. Like I said, a few bumps down the line, but it's a movie I'm proud of, because our soldiers' sacrifice has been remembered in a big way and now I know, Canada can make a good movie.

A good thriller is a smart thriller, it keeps you guessing while leaving you breathless or at the edge of your seat. The Bourne films are a great example of that, the story is strong and intelligent in where it goes and the action was top notch and unforgettable. Traitor isn't quite like a Bourne movie, but that's actually a good thing. Many thrillers these days seem to be doing the same things the Bourne Movies, with little to no success and Traitor stays away from that kind of film. It makes something of itself and it turns out to be one of the better, more fascinating thrillers of the year.

Don Cheadle is an excellent actor, if you've seen Hotel Rwanda and Talk to Me, you know what I mean. In Traitor, he's as good as ever and is one of the main reasons why this film succeeds. He handles this conflicted character so well and is quite convincing in the end. I'd also like to point out Guy Pearce, who does a great job as well, though in my opinion, his best was back in Christopher Nolan's Memento. That is when he was brilliant. Pearce still manages to give us something good, in a role that I thought didn't suit him at first, but it did. Traitor also has a great supporting cast including Neal McDonough, everyone is great here and I mean EVERYONE! They all give their best, every big name and every no name, the assembled cast is near perfect.

What I'm very surprised about, is the fact that Steve Martin, THE Steve Martin, came up with the story this film is based upon. This type of genre really isn't of his usual style of work, but now we know Martin can write something deep and full of heart, without that much humor too. Traitor has a solid story and never leaves you in the boredom zone for a second. Occasionally the story seems to get off course, but eventually gets back in line. The story's effectiveness doesn't limit itself to the characters within it, but it reached out to all of us who are watching. It explores the territories of faith, trust and the strength of our inner being. Sometimes it can get a little heavy, but it tries its best to keep you in without taking off into something we really didn't need. I can't really call this an espionage film, mainly because its approach to the subject matter, but I can label it defiantly, a thriller.

Traitor isn't quite an action movie because it isn't stuffed with action or anything breathtaking. The guns do come out and shots are fired, while explosions in cars and coffee shops happen every once in a while, but the movie focuses more on the tactical edge of pulling of these actions, a terrorist or FBI agent, going into situations with guns not a blazin', we get to see the process of it all coming together and the outcome is usually impressive. Director Jeffrey Nachmanoff ventures out of the cliché territories of your usual thriller and brings us thrilling moments on the more intellectual side, and does a great job of that. He certainly hasn't crafted a perfect film, but he hasn't a long career yet, he has a long way ahead of him to get better. I guess you could call this a jump point for him, Traitor really does deliver what it needs to.

Overall, Traitor proves to be an interesting, intense and quite different thriller that film goers should check out, if you're not all about the action. Seriously, if you want to see some stellar performances, a great narrative, surprisingly by Steve Martin and some action scenes that are more than just people shooting at each other, than this is the flick for you. Just be ready for some heavy moments that may get you to think.

Has anyone else noticed that there's a whole lot of sports movies out there, most having problems caused by racsim between characters. Well that formula is back yet again in The Express, only this time around, it feels a little more realistic. The Express isn't filled with a whole lot of mumbo jumbo magic movies like fellow sports films, Remember the Titans and We Are Marshall, it's more in the biographical side, telling the story of this extraordinary man, Ernie Davis. Still, the movie can sometimes go into the inspirational overtoned moments, but it's quite good in total. A big plus with this film is the fantastic performances by Rob Brown and even more so, Dennis Quaid as the coach. They play their parts with ellegance and class, displaying the tremendous talent both have been known for. And the character chemistry here is superb and have authentic feel to them. The football never seems to be the main star of this movie either, which is a great thing. It's more focused on the development of Ernie Davis' fascinating character. Unfortunately, there's a big drawback with The Express, it's about twenty minutes too long. Sure, it's an amazing story that has a lot to show, but it feels slow paced at times, hurting the flow harshly. But this a nice film to experience. It goes deep and scores your heart from the beginning, it only has trouble keeping it from trailing away. For the sake of Ernie Davis' legacy, see this one.

I miss Alfred Hitchcock, which is a weird thing to say, since he died before I was even born. But the thing about Hitchcock though was that his style hasn?t aged after his death. We cower at a seagull swooping down to eat some garbage after watching The Birds. We think of that horrifying music when taking a shower after watching Psycho. And we know now it?s not a good idea to hit on your friends girlfriend, or wife, after watching Vertigo of course. Most of Hitchcock?s films have inspired generations of filmmakers to this day, teaching the right way of how to make a thriller that chills the spine. Transsiberian is not an Alfred Hitchcock film, like I said, he?s been dead for nearly three decades. But director Brad Anderson takes the teachings of Hitchcock?s classics and applies them to his own thriller, though it seems like an altered version of Strangers on Train, another film brought to you by Alfred Hitchcock. And while Transsiberian isn?t in the same league as Strangers on a Train, or any Hitchcock movie for that matter, it does the job it was meant to do, thrill.

What helps Transsiberian is the cast, which is a pretty solid one, Woody Harrelson, Emily Mortimer and, oh look, Ben Kingsley, again. Nobody else is really worthy of notice, but the film spends most of its time on these three actors portraying these characters. Harrelson does a good job playing Roy, the overly nice, sometimes too corny husband of Emily Mortimer?s character, Jessie. Mortimer is pretty much the centre of all that happens, and she handles that pressure pretty well. I can?t say she?s the one to shine, but Mortimer is strong in her performance, giving us someone who we can?t decided our feelings on. That?s the case with all of these characters, at one moment we know how we feel about them, but then an event triggers something crucial in the story, and those characters take a sharp turn in a different direction, to the lighter side, or the darker side. The thing is, this flick balances this to the point where it doesn?t feel the change is stuffed or pressured in, the narrative runs smoothly and fit?s the pieces together very well. I haven?t seen so many great twists since The Departed, actually that wasn?t that long ago, but still, The Departed was flippin AMAZING! Now, once again, we?ve got good ol? Ben Kingsley in another great role as the Russian detective, or whatever he ended up being, Grinko. Not many actors I know of have done justice to my ancestor ?s accent, but Kingsley, once again, pulls it off brilliantly. Seriously, this guy is a movie every week this year, with the exception that I don?t call the Love Guru a movie, I call it "The Time Mike Myers Lost All Respect", or 87 minutes in a vortex of endless pain. Once again, Kingsley steals the show with yet another impressive performance to add to his ever growing resume. Still, my favorite of his would still have to be in War, Inc., the southerner accent was priceless.

I compared Transsiberian to movies of the great Alfred Hitchcock, and for a reason. This film was completely inspired by the brilliance of Hitchcock, yet maintains to be something to be on it?s own. We get a whole lot of edgy cinematography inside the trains and out, it helps to tell the story. The problem with the story though, is that I felt not enough happened on the thrilling side, it was more physiological tan physical , though we get some occasional blood and guts that?ll churn your insides. Mostly though, we just see people crumble under pressure, do something out of the ordinary due to a story twist, then we get to that great climax. This formula works for the most part, thanks to good performances, it?s just, I wanted to choke on popcorn because of the overwhelming thrills. You won?t get overwhelmed by much, except maybe from that torture scene, but the plot twists are clever enough to stabilize the story and the constant, sudden character developments, acted out very well, keep it interesting.

For one last time, this is no Hitchcock fair, yet Brad Anderson has crafted a movie that?s smart and full of life, despite the lack of scares and crap yourself moments. It can be candy for the eyes with the locations or a claustrophobic cornucopia in the train scenes, but finds a good balance of everything to make it worthy of mention. Transsiberian will be one not many people remember in the long run, since it wasn?t released in that many theaters, or even heard of. I actually only heard about this while watching Ebert and Roeper @ The Movies, Richard Roeper giving it a recommendation. I?m glad I was given the opportunity to see it in the end, Transsiberian is a solid movie that isn?t based on cheap scares or Jessica Alba leveled performances. Check it out and see that the thriller genre is still to this day inspired by a great man?s work, who?s gone, but never really left, thanks to films like Transsiberian.

"There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it." - Alfred Hitchcock

The Forbidden is one of the hard films to describe, because there's nothing really to talk about it. I saw this movie a couple of days before writting this, because I was having trouble trying to find something to explain about the film. I had the same problem with Jumper, but I can tell you this, Forbidden Kingdom isn't a bad movie at all, actually it hits the target dead on.

The story, that's the only problem I kinda have about the movie. It seems more directed towards a family friendly audience, but this film isn't really that at all. Bodies are seen hanged from trees. People get stabbed by a various amount of sharp objects, by that I mean swords, throwing-stars, etc. Even an old man gets shot and blood comes out of his chest. I definately can't say this is the perfect action family film and this is from the director of The Lion King. So yeah, the story being a little too cheesy and the action scenes being somewhat graphic (but brilliant), the mix doesn't go that well. Luckily, the story is not terrible, otherwise, this movie would've been screwed.

I've always wanted see Jackie Chan and Jet Li in the same film, and my wish has come true. And it's great that this film isn't a combination of Chan not understanding his lines and Li getting perverted with the girls on screen. Anyways, these guys are incredibly awesome in this movie, especially when they're fighting eachother. A little wire tricks, a little computer animation and a whole lot of actual fighting actually blended well together for the very first time in my opinion. Most people well actually forget about the story and just love the action, which isn't really a bad thing. I'm a big fan of having a good story in a film, but this movie would've been great even without a story. The action is really that good.

But yes, Chan and Li are in the same movie doing some of their coolest stunts ever and actually some of their best acting. Even Li is funny because he's so simple, while Chan is funny and over the top. Really, some of the best work I've ever seen them do. Now, Michael Angarano.......

Angarano wasn't bad, his character sometimes just added to the unnecissary cheese in the film, but in the end, he's the one character you can relate to, and in that way, his character was necissary. It was obvious there would be a training montage for Angarano and there was. After a minute getting abused by Chan and Li, (Ferociously trained) he becomes as good at martial arts as the superstars. Maybe not that good, but you can see Angarano trained quite well for this film, and it payed off.

Back to the action, fricken cool! I usuallly hate wire tricks and computer animation put into fight scenes, but it adds so much character to the fight scenes, especially the epic ones of mass proportions. Fantastic backgrounds and legions of warriors taking on Chan, Li, Angarano and friends, boy they needed the special effects. Otherwise, the movie would've had a pretty unoriginal style to it, taking away from the films purpose. So all you cranky people out there who hat tampered fight scenes, trust me, in this one, it works for the better.

So families, think twice before you come see The Forbidden Kingdom, but martial arts movie fans rejoice, for one of the most enjoyable films of the year has arrived. It's different and it's exciting, for the better part. (AWESOME THAT JACKIE CHAN AND JET LI ARE IN THE SAME MOVIE! SERIOUSLY!)

M. Night Shyamalan has given us a load of crap lately and the people have been giving it back in return. We?re wondering what ever ?happened? to that brilliant young filmmaker who stopped bringing us the good stuff after Signs, and with a film like The 6th Sense on your resume, that?s something hard to beat in the later years. I didn?t quite hate Lady in the Water like everyone else, but I did dislike The Village a great deal, that one lacked in something. His latest ?The Happening?, was apparently his last chance at maintaining his status of a high-profile filmmaker. It turns out, this one?s been trashed more than Lady in the Water, claiming it?s weak in story, brings out near terrible performances and it overall doesn?t make any sense. I kinda agree with one of those things up there. Before I saw this, I read a review on the film by Roger Ebert (whom I respect, but he was Way off on Incredible Hulk and Zohan), and he said in a way, the film was ?touching.? And in a way, I agree with him.

The Happening has an interesting concept that people aren?t really loving, but it actually teaches us something. Some may find it absurd, others, terrifying, it all depends on how much you love the planet we live on. M. Night Shy has always gone to extremes with his stories, but the Happening brings one that?s more so believable and alarming. I wouldn?t doubt that most of you already know more than what the previews bring, but I?m not gonna bother telling you the whole thing. And while alarming, it?s also entertaining, M. Night Shy?s best concept since Unbreakable. I only say this because Signs was inspired by many elements combined. It?s a deep force at work in the film, the only problem I have with it is that it?s practically given halfway through the movie. It starts with that Twilight Zone episode feel, but turns into something different later.

This movie isn?t filled with strong, stirring performances, but they get the job done?? mostly. I was most impressed with Mark Wahlberg?s performance as the school teacher that everyone wants to rely on. He plays just your average Joe, trying to get away from the madness and death all around him while putting his family first. That works the best I find in this film and I see Wahlberg becoming a better actor every film he does. His Oscar nom proves that. Everyone else, well??.. Definitely not the best. It seemed like Wahlberg was walking with a bunch of zombie like people to begin with and that?s not a good thing. Eventually, most of the acts get better as the film goes by, if the character isn?t killed or something. We get another nice cameo by M. Night Shy himself, which is something he delivers well in all of his films. So when going in to the theaters (hopefully you do), don?t expect the all-star cast to bring out the Marlon Brando in them.

M. Night Shy is known for bringing on the suspense and the creeps and here, that all happens, once again to a certain extent. You won?t be at the edge of your seat, but there?s some weird and disturbing stuff here. It gets creepy when nothing?s actually ?happening?, the waiting of something interesting to on is the real thriller here. When we get to the creepy stuff , it isn?t too scary, but does give a shiver or two. With M. Night Shy, it?s always been about the event before the final outcome, as Alfred Hitchcock once said. Speaking of Hitchcock, there?s a hint of ?The Birds? in this movie, but that film was brilliant, so that style is very welcome in The Happening. I still can?t figure the R-rating still. Yes, some of this stuff is heavy duty (you get to see a guy get his arms ripped off by zoo animals), but it?s things that a 13 year-old could handle. There?s not even an F-word here to promote an R-rating, it?s just a little more odd than the movie itself. The cinematography here is actually beautiful and creates the tone this movie needed to set. Never have I been so scared seeing open prairies with grass moving to the wind. The most intense part of this movie is actually the final scene. I never saw it coming, it?s that good. Again, typical M. Night Shy to bring us a surprise ending that?ll take us off guard.

So overall, this isn?t exactly Shy?s film to bring him back, but it doesn?t deserve the horrible criticism it?s getting. This a nice, pretty unique film that actually makes some statements about the world around us, things we need to be aware of. If a horror movie can teach a lesson besides ?Lock your doors and pretend you?re safe?, there must be something to it. Thanks to Wahlberg, the edgy cinematography and that fantastic ending, The Happening is one of those movies that people may realize is actually good when they decide to lay off M. Night Shy. In my opinion, critics and people just hate this guy because he didn?t quite give them the fairy tale they wanted with Lady in the Water. Give the guy a break! He?s presented us with something not half bad and gets the job done. Still, scary goes to The Strangers so far this year, that?s a hard one to top. But take The Happening as it is, not Shy?s official effort for redemption.

It's great how the western genre is coming back, gradually. I believe last year was the start of all whole new western era in film and that start was 3:10 to Yuma. What a teriffic movie that was, a western that reached to different audiences and gained respect for the genre that started dieing when Clint Eastwood started directing, or when John Wayne died. Whatever the case, Yuma was one of the best films of 2007 and the best western since Unforgiven. Not that there hasn't been a whole lot of westerns in between those two movies, like Open Range and Assasination of Jesse James, etc., but those are what I call, good but forgettable. Appaloosa, looked to be another epic cowboy adventure, not Brokeback adventure, I mean the normal kind of cowboy adventure. With Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen at the lead, there seemed to be a strong hype to this one and many hoped it would be this year's Yuma. For me personally though, this isn't this year's Yuma, not even close actually, not even in the same league. Sure, there are some things to admire about this movie, but a film that feels unevenly balanced, can be a tough sit through at the movies. The strong points with this one mostly involves the acting and art direction. Everyone here is fantastic, Harris, Mortensen, Zellweger, the whole bunch brings on superb performances that really grabs the mood of the era, as does the brilliant art direction that takes us back to that point in history we just love to watch. Problems come in pretty quickly in Appaloosa, then they go out, back in, back out, this pattern continues throughout the entire film. It can be extremely slow and sometimes, nonsensible with the funny but completely random comedy moments. When this movie slows down, it REALLY slows down, even slower than last year's Jesse James. And that creates an unbalanced storyline that mostly shines when the actors are pourung their hearts out. Some elements to the story are fascinating, like the love triangle and others just don't work. Then there's the lack of intensity, guns blazing horses running, guys screaming "YEE-HAW!" or something like that, but there's not much traditional western moments that really make this a great western. Still, when the movie gets back on track, it's a rather enjoyable experience, thanks to the perfomances. And for that reason, I would watch it again, but maybe just one more time. Appaloosa is not as good as 3:10 to Yuma, but better than most others of the genre that have tried to do a great western and failed. This one requires more thinking than wathcing just for entertainment pleasure, so if you're up for a movie like that, why don't you check this one out.

Not very deep, but all great fun! That's about it. There really isn't much to talk about Jumper.

Let's get this out of the way, this is not a football movie. A football movie is half about football and half about characters, Leatherheads is 1/4 about football, the rest about characters. And thanks to these charming and interesting characters Clooney has put in his film, it leaves you feeling good at the end, without the dramatic cliches that are found in every sports movie. I though, being a film lover since birth and through the hundreds of movies I've scene, Leatherheads gives us something special that no film has given to us since....... the 50's, maybe earlier.

We're taken back to the year 1925, around where the events of King Kong took place. But Leatherheads gives us more time to feel like we're in that time, and does a whole lot to support that. The music is nothing but classic and the acting is just like it would've been from movies that time. As a director and actor, Clooney is able to bring this all together the way he wants it to be and the way it should be. Basically, it's a movie you'd be seeing decades ago, only in color and with some swearing here and there. I really didn't find the swearing useful or effective. This could've become a great and perfect family film, but the swearing will ruin that for most.

Renee Zellweger really shined in this film, because of her performance. She perfectly plays in the time she's pretending to live in, it all feels so right how she portrays the nosey-reporter person with that 1920's personality. Zellweger is one of the best thins about this film overall. I'm still not sure about John Krasinski's role. I didn't feel this was the kind of movie he should be in, it didn't completely work. He's way too stern and he's not that interesting, but the character does add some much needed conflict through the film. Clooney pulls it off, but it's kind of hard watching him play a crazy guy after seeing him in Michael Clayton not too long ago. Still he does it well.

What this film lacked in was laugh out-loud moments. You'll have your occasional he he and your ha ha, but not any HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really, the film could've used some of these moments, but it's saved by plenty of character moments and there's a lot of those. The story sometimes feels a little unbalanced as well, but not to the point where it completely kills the film.

It's nice to see a film like Leatherheads in this century. It reminds us of the good old days where movies were for going out and having fun. You got to give it up to Clooney for doing this and pretty much pulling it of. Don't expect to laugh a whole lot, but Leatherheads is what most movies should be: fun.

Hollywood is running out of ideas, that's plain to see. Ever since we saw Starsky and Hutch come around as a movie, we knew it was coming. Sometimes, Hollywood has tried to make offspring movies, most of them have been lame and unoriginal. But it seems the proper parent movies put together, perhaps The Matrix and Shoot Em' Up, maybe based on a graphic novel, has pulled it off. Not in a fantastic way, but in such a cool way you forget this movie's trash.

So yeah, we have a pretty hot cast here, in an A-List manor of speaking, well there?s Angelina Jolie so it goes both ways for her. A-List casts don't always save movies of course, but here it helps. James McAvoy, who's career completely went strong after Atonement, returns to the screen, this time for action lovers. He does a good transition from a depressed office person to a well-trained assassin and wins over the audience, but not alone. Angelina Jolie?s pretty hot in this one, like in most of her movies, but that kiss she had with McAvoy made people say "things" in the audience, but the words justified it just perfectly. I still don't know how she can keep her looks with the hundreds of kids she has to take care of. There are few others I don?t to bother mentioning, except for Morgan Freeman and Terrence Stamp. Here we have two veteran actors who are still winning the whole thing with only a few brief scenes. We just saw Stamp in Get Smart and we'll be seeing Freeman in the Dark Knight soon, clearly they haven?t lost their edge yet. Acting isn't the reason to see this one though, it's the action.

Like I said, we have The Matrix and Shoot Em' Up mixed together here and most of the time it works. Sometimes, it all moves too quickly and can be dizzying, but the Bourne movies make it look like The Tunnel of Love. Special effects are sharp and very nice, which is what this movie's mostly made up of, I just couldn't get enough if those curved bullet shots, you thought Shoot E'? Up took it to far when Clive Owen killed Paul Giamatti with carrot fingers. No, this movie?s beyond crazy and reason, but we need that sometimes don't we, to escape the fact that if we got hit by a train, we'd die horribly. By the way, Wanted is incredibly gory. It?s like Saving Private Ryan mixed with the Delta Force movies . We see a bullet go through someone's head, in slow motion, multiple times and it never gets old. Unlike Saving Private Ryan or the Delta Force movies, this movie is fun to watch, and the violence works quite well. The main highlight is the impossible stunts everyone does, whether on a speeding train or gun chase, it's really exciting to watch, but clearly ripped off from the Matrix. Even though this one was based on a graphic novel this movie has clearly copied so much from other movies but adds things of its own to stop it from appearing completely cliché. This is director Timur Bekmamzxcvf?? something something's first Hollywood film and you can see he has great vision and I?m looking forward to seeing more from him. Sadly, he hasn't given us a great film, only a good one.

Swearing can be a funny and emotion driving thing to put into a movie, but in Wanted, it just sounds forced and incredibly dorky. You got an "F" here and an "F" but never does it really fit where placed. I love it though when Morgan Freeman says "Let's shoot that mother-f***er!". That was flippin amazing, otherwise, the swearing sucks in this movie. Also, the story can get very confusing and stupid at times, and it all happens so fast. It starts off smoothly, but from then on, it gets so faced paced , we barely have anytime to breathe. So with the stupid swearing and somewhat confusing story, the film really struggles to maintain a balance, but we still get entertained quite a lot.

Wanted is really just another summer blockbuster, but I good one as that. Though quite flawed and never really unique on its own, the fun just keeps on coming and the cheesiness of it all is welcomed throughout the entire thing. Angelina lovers will probably love this one the most, she does some pretty "interesting" things in this one. I still think should looked her best in The Good Shepherd. Something about her in 50?s clothing just looks right.

We haven't seen good ol' Brendan Fraser in anything worth noting since Crash came out in 2004, which is quite a while ago. Now we get to see this guy twice this summer, in Journey to the Centre of the Earth and the third Mummy film coming up. And I gotta say to the guy, welcome back. Jules Verne's novel has been the subject of many films the last 50 years, all have been lame and forgettable, yes, even that classic 1959 version included. But now, with actually talent working on it, could this years' version of one of the most popular stories of all time, stand out while sticking with the source material?

Well, let's start off by saying that this film nothing like the novel, with a small exception of some of the classic creatures in there. The story mainly works off that the original novel serves as guideline to the real centre of the earth. So Brendan Fraser takes his "lost" (cough cough dead cough) brother's son and teams up with an attractive female mountain guide to search for the brother that's been missing for a decade and to prove that his theory was the truth. So the books in the movie, no similar characters or plotlines, call this film a sequel to the original story that takes place more then 100 years later. While the original story is complex and reveals this other world to be more vast, the movie is incredibly straight forward and you can't miss a thing after one view of it. In a way, that's not really fair that so much was sacrificed to make the kiddies, all I can say is, the fans of the novel won't be satisfied. It's like watching just the action scenes of the movie, everything you never got see, the depth of it all. I can't say this movie didn't have any touchy, the uncle-nephew relationship between Fraser and Josh Hutcherson was really well developed and emotional. It goes where many family films fail to hit the mark. Antia Briem's character's there just because we need someone good-looking to watch through the whole thing, and that cliché but sweet romance too.

Many people are saying this movie's jaw dropping and I agree for the most part, but I pity the folks who are to see this on the plain screen. This movie would be nothing without the 3D element of it all, also called Real D. You simply can't have the same experience when everything isn't popping at you, trying to eat you or the mouths are spewing water in your face. 3D is something this movie just can't survive without, there's not enough here to go for it when it's flat and away. Most of the shots here need that 3D touch, I can imagine on the normal theater screens, they'd look so incredibly lame and inappropriate. I think they should've at least provided the 3D images to the normal theaters, like Spy-Kids 3D did, people would've had gotten a little more for their money. The special effects here are quite dated, but that's understandable for 3D movie goers, kids would seriously crap themselves if they got an better looking. The normal experience will bring nothing but cartoony images that only the toddlers will be impressed with. Speaking of toddlers, that brings my next set of words on this film.

This is literally the best family-friendly film that isn't an animated film, or not entirely and animated film. And because the story is straight forward and the special effects aren't bringing anything to promote crying, everyone can get a kick out of this film. And that's the heart of this film, the thing that drives it to be enjoyable in the end. We really don't have too many films like this where there isn?t a thing that makes the parent or babysitter regret bringing the kids to see it. The worst you see here is Brendan Fraser hitting killer fish with a stick and stabbing the heads of carnivorous plants, no blood or chlorophyll found here. So the fact that it's extremely kid friendly and many adults can enjoy it too, make the movie a nice recommendation.

So in the end, while it isn't anything terrific, especially when there's no 3D, Journey to the Centre of the Earth marks a solid return of Brendan Fraser and the release of a film that's a safe bet for the kids. Also, if you're a Seth Meyers fan, this might last you until the return of SNL later this year, his small but good role shows off this guy in a different way/character we're used to seeing him playing. So families, take the kids to this movie, fans of the book, non fans of the book alike will like this if they aren't too critical. Don't have a theater showing this in 3D nearby, take a road trip to the city with one, and if you didn't feel it was worth it, go camping or something.

It's been a while since we've seen Harold and Kumar back in "White Castle" and I gotta say I really wanted to see them another movie doing the retarted stuff they do. The sequel, though it's original, isn't really as good as the first one, but if your a Harold and Kumar fan....... let's talk.

First of all, Guantanamo Bay hasn't got a whole lot to the film's plot. The duo's probably there for a couple minutes, escape then they're in the US the rest of the time. They are escaping from Guantanamo Bay, but really, that part isn't that important to make it the film's title. It somewhat would've been interesting to have the movie having Harold and Kumar stuck in the prison most of the time and continuously they'd try to escape and once they escape, there's an "epic chase scene". Overall though, I didn't mind the route the film went.

I've seen A LOT of movies in my life, but Harold and Kumar 2 is one of the most disguisting movies I've ever scene. This movie's made up of a disturbing disguisting, gradually the type you won't have to squint your eyes in horror while laughing. They basically took the wacked out side of the first Harold and Kumar and multiplied it by a lot. But it's just great having Harold and Kumar back on the bigscreen again.

This movie's definately a good buddy movie, especially if your a bunch of dudes who enjoy major exploitation of the female anatomy and despise the sudden male anatomy exploitation and still laugh while you cringe. It's better to see this movie with friends, you'll have someone to laugh with you.

John Cho and Kal Penn are awesome in this movie. Besides something I'm going to mention in a second, they keep the film away from being a crapfest that some other duo would completely screw up. Maybe because it's Harold and Kumar, you can appreciate the disguisting things within the movie, or most of it. That dick shot was really bad. At least in Forgetting Sarah Marshall it worked but come on, when it's expected, just don't do it.
Anyways, Cho and Penn are as good as ever, just with material that just doesn't completely hold up to expectations. Creators Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg are welcome to write the next one, but they should leave the directing to someone else.

You probably know what the best part of this movie is already. If you guessed the naked women, you're a sexest pig! (Just Kidding! Except to Brandon Moeller.) No, Neil Patrick Harris and his incredible cameo is the highlight in this film as it was in the first. Seeing this guy do drugs and seeing the stuff he sees is frickn' funny beyond belief. It's always interesting having an actor spoofing himself and Neil Patrick Harris is one of the best out there at doing that. A scene may bring fans down involving NPH, but be patient, it'll pay off in the end.

It isn't exactly the sequel I was looking for, but Escape from Guantanamo Bay is one of those movies you're gonna want to watch with pals without the gals around. While we laugh, they're disguisted. I'm not saying all women wouldn't enjoy this movie, there's just not that much for them coming from this film. Until next time Harold and Kumar, thanks for coming back to give us a few laughs and some scenes that will scar us for life.

Vantage Point was definately intense and well filmed, but there was a problem I had with it. There are eight points of view to the assasination of the "fake" President, and I didn't care about half of them or their characters. All of them are important and continue on and connect the story, but while they were necissary, they weren't all that great. The film should've limited itself to 4 or 5 points at the most. I was mostly impressed and interested with Forest Whitaker and his part of the story. The events that happen to him are the most exciting and worthy of attention. In fact, the whole movie could've been about his point of view, now that would've been fantastic! Whitaker's performance is near astonoshing and breathtaking. He will be nominated for "BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR" on my "Of the Year" awards, at least that's what it looks like. Pretty much, everyone is a supporting actor in this movie, not one character is main. Dennis Quaid's role of the Secret Service is more than likely to be recognized as the main role, but that's clearly just because he got to be in the epic car chase in the end, in which case, I've seen better.

Vantage Point has ended up just an average thriller, saved by Forest Whitaker's brilliant performance and intense storyline. Otherwise, it's just a Bourne movie times 10 in epicness.

It's amazing on how much your opinion on a person changes after that person dies. That's the case with and Bernie Mac, someone who I didn't really know as an actor until now, when it was too late. Now after seeing some of his work and now his final film, Soul Men, I've gained a respect for this comedian, who turned out to be one of the more funny guys out there. Dane Cook wishes he had the respect, let alone talent to match. I only wish Bernie's last was a little stronger in story, but the story really doesn't hurt the awesomeness Bernie shines throughout. It's a fantastic performance and beyond funny and he's half of what makes this movie. Sam Jackson is also amazing in this movie, doing his kick-butt stuff as usual. I personally didn't like Lakeview Terrace, but this makes up for that mistake. Both Mac and Jackson have a wonderful chemistry and make the perfect singing duo, by the way, the songs are fantastic, showing that Mac and Jackson are made up of multiple talents. The story these two great characters are in, doesn't really work to the needed standards. There's plenty of funny moments, but it gets too dry every once in a while and the flow goes off. Still, the chemistry is there and the funny factor is present, but a good story really makes a difference. You can find a little heart in it all, but the vulgar stuff may get in the way. It's perfect to have Bernie Mac to be in a vulgar movie for his last, those were more "appropriate" for him. The tribute to Mac in the end is actually reason enough to see this thing, it's really well done and puts on a whole new mourning level for the great comedian. And don't worry, Isaac Hayes is also mentioned in it too, you just can't forget him. In the end, Soul Men as whole isn't that great of movie, but Bernie Mac's and Sam Jackson's chemistry is strong, the humor is quite solid, if not, a little immature and Mac's performance is one of great value that all fans of the late comedy master should. And since it's a buddy flick, you may end up appreciating your own buddies even more after this, because life's unpredictable and you never know who's staying or going. R.I.P. Bernie Mac, you're a true a soul man.

Drillbit Taylor was almost to the point of mediocity, a film easily forgetable, which is quite unlike to what the Apatow gang usually brings. But once again, one thing saves this film, something wonderful that has made almost all the Apatow films great, a characteristic many films don't have. Once again, we can truely relate to the characters.

I'm sorry to say, Drillbit won't be the character you'll be cheering for throughout the movie, you'll be too interested in the 3 teenage characters that seemed so familiar from another Seth Rogen script. (Superbad) Owen Wilson does a great job playing Drillbit, but he really isn't the type of guy you'd cheer on in a fight, not all the time. Towards the end he becomes the character you would admire, but I'm not sure I liked the approach to the character. Sure he's funny, yet a jerk at the same time, including his friend, who was greatly played by Danny McBride. McBride is always awesome to see, but I liked him more in Hot Rod. He also seemed a little the same in this movie, but who really cares I mean it's Danny McBride. Anyways, Wilson pulls off the role, but it isn't quite the one you'd expect and in ways, it's a let down.

Another thing I was incredibly disappointed with was the brief and rushed romance between Drillbit and Lisa (Leslie Mann). It all started off so quickly and the character Lisa, while saying she's always falling in love with wierdos and tries to stay away from them, gets into Drillbit, the creepy fake body gaurd/ doctor/ poor man, right away. Throughout, there wasn't much depth to it, nothing truely say, these two were meaned to be.

But the thing I can't stop praising about the film, was the three teenage pals, whom almost everyone can relate to. Seth Rogen wrote three characters like this in Superbad, and this felt like a prequel to those characters. Though they aren't exactly the same, you can see where Rogen got his inspiration from. Wade, Ryan and Emmit, the three nerds viewers will know, if not themselves, the people they know. These guys are friends, the chemistry is perfect. And when they meet Drillbit, they develop a huge close friendship that I surprisingly found very touching. It takes a while for this important element to reveal itself in the film, but so does most of the good things in this film. The friendship of the guys just trying to get through highschool and the guy teaching them stupid self defense tricks is the heart of the film, it keeps it going. And while the conflicts were expected to happen, a well produced ending fixes that all up. And that's what saves this movie, not the humor, which it lacks in at a few times.

In the end, Drillbit Taylor is a hit and miss, kind of like Walk Hard, but I really liked this one more. Walk Hard was just stupid, good stupid, but mostly bad stupid. Here it's mostly a good stupid, it's character driven, not all about sex and drugs which have become too common in comedies these days. Drillbit Taylor is worth a look, because more than likely when you look up at the screen, you'll see someone like you, maybe if you're a hardcore liar or a kid survivng life.

I love John C. Reilly and truly believe his first main role performance in Walk Hard was a waste, he's a funny guy, but he needs funny material. Step Brothers is an example that this guy can be great with something solid for him to work off of. Reilly isn't in the lead in The Promotion, but I say he should have been, since he's the brilliant one here. The Promotion is a nice film for a few reasons, which are mostly justified by it's cast.

While I love John C. Reilly, I've never been a fan of Seann William Scott, especially with films like Dukes of Hazzard and Mr. Woodcock on his resume, but in this film, Scott proves that he can act with a little cleverness and that he can choose the right script. Then we have Jenna Fischer playing the nice and supportive wife who's always there to be.... well, supportive. And then there's Fred Armisen who plays the manager at the grocery store everyone seems to work at in this film. It isn't the humor or the story that makes The Promotion what it is, it's the great performances from everyone involved. You can appreciate each character for who they are and I didn't even hate one of them. Even Jason Bateman had a cool cameo in this film, but I'm not sure why he didn't even get credited. There seems to be a certain oddness to everyone in the film, good or bad, yet it's an oddness we're used to seeing in people almost everyday, making it feel like this town or this grocery store could very well be your own. The highlight for me in The Promotion was John C. Reilly's extremely stereotypical Canadian accent, what was that aboot? I'm a Canadian and that's not how we speak, so it was a laugh riot hearing Reilly speaking that way the entire time. It's either showing how sure the US is of their belief of us, or that they just have no freaking idea after all these years. Whatever the case, Reilly does a great job playing this character and it's even more funny that his wife is Scottish. Their conversations sound awesome.

The story in The Promotion isn't anything special, but is unique to say the least. It feels authentic throughout and never seems to bore you in the slightest, though it isn't necessarily funny. I'd say it's more of a slice of life film, similar to the style of Smart People, but in no way of the same league. Without the cast this flick has, it wouldn't have been able to survive. I like the smallness of it all and how it doesn't try to be more than it is. It just would've been nice if it was more clever in the funnies.

The Promotion proves to be a solid, if not somewhat funny movie that people would enjoy only because of the brilliant and realized casting choices, in which they deliver strong performances in return. If you're wanting to see a comedy, look elsewhere, but if you're looking at something that feels realistic and entertains at the same time, check this out, worth a rent at most. I can see Canadians finding this funny the most, Reilly's act just goes to show that they're still in the stone age when it comes to the casual American knowing about Canada. Oh well, they've got Jack in the Box, we don't.

I have wanted to see this film for a long time, since January actually, when I first heard about it. It's weird I couldn't put my finger on it, why I wanted to see it to begin with. Perhaps it's because Ben Kingsley, fantastic at his craft, was in it playing a druggie. Maybe it's because that Josh Peck kid from TV was in it, playing a serious performance for once. Or, Olivia Thirlby from the amazing film we've all come to know as Juno, decided to bring in her snappy and saucy edge to the film. You know it even could've been that the film was a success, I really don't know. All that I know is that these people I know who got me into seeing movies like War, Inc., Charlie Bartlett, the ever flipping incredible Run Fat Boy, Run, among others, finally got me into seeing this one, bless em. And while I'm slightly disappointed and non-ecstatic about this one, I can tell you with no problem that The Wackness has something to offer and makes for a rather solid "drama".

The word drama is what best describes The Wackness. I've been told repeatedly that this film is funny in a somewhat disturbing way. Um...... it's not, it's just not. It's not funny in the slightest, the film's tilting too much on the disturbing side to be funny where we laugh or smile. It works better to be called a drama, The Wackness isn't something that's going to leave you in stitches, because the story will seriously not have that. The story is quite basic, nothing fancy, but it gets the job done and leaves a feel of satisfaction, if not, depression. It tries to cram a lot of emotions into it, but director Jonathan Levine's style and approach to film making doesn't completely cooperate with his material, which he wrote. But these characters are interesting for the most part and we don't hate them, even though they're crappy people. And I guess that's a good thing, when we love the people we're supposed to hate, because we can see they aren't really little Hitlers who are all deranged and stuff, there's something in them we know will come out as the story progresses. I've also seen a lot of movies where an older man becomes best friends with a kid, like in this years Meet Bill. Pretty much everyone of these types of friendships are weird, off and completely freaky. I'll add unnatural too. Here, I didn't get that feeling when watching the Ben Kingsley befriending Josh Peck's character, the chemistry actually was solid here and the film didn't take anywhere it didn't need to go, like them going everywhere together and doing creepy things like that. So, The Wackness achieves the non-disturbing old-young man friendship, and that's saying a lot about it.

I've seen Ben Kingsley in three movies so far this year, War, Inc. (my favorite performance from him), The Wackness ( I'm getting to it), and The Love Guru (Even the greatest of actors have one of the worst movies ever on their resume, just not as bad as The Love Guru), apparently he's been in a couple more than that this year. The guy's in his prime, acting up a storm wherever he goes and he seems to be getting better and better. While this isn't my favorite performance from him, he does a great job playing the troubled, usually high shrink to Josh Peck's character. The way how he also portrays his character is probably the reason the whole friendship thing is off-beat, leave it to Ben Kingsley to make the usual bad thing something different. I'm still laughing at his southerner accent in War, Inc., that's a good thing, perfectly suited the crazy villain role others would've screwed. This is also the second film in a row I've seen Famke Janssen in, she was in Taken, which I might add, is a solid action thriller coming September 19th, so be ready. Anyways, she didn't do anything that wowed me, so she's not worth mentioning. Now Olivia Thirlby is worth mentioning. She gives another teenage girl act, thirty times the hormones in her though, but she's as great as ever. Juno, Snow Angels and now The Wackness are what I've seen of her and she just keeps getting better and better. She represents more of the crazy side of the story, gives Josh Peck's character a lot of ?first times? if you know what I mean, sex! She opens up Peck's character to do more with his life than just selling weed and that created a dynamic, fairly interesting side to the story. I really don't know what the heck Mary-Kate Olson was doing here as a prostitute, especially without her sister around for threesomes. I know that sounds twisted and yes I admit that was, but her role has pretty much nothing to do with anything and the two scenes she was in, we could've lived without. She ain't a good actress in total.

Now I've got to give props to Josh Peck, Nickelodeon Icon, who's stepped out of the kiddie field and into the world of seriousness without Drake being around to get him into trouble. Drake was busy making a fool of himself in Superhero Movie, but heck, I can't call that one bad, not good either. But this role is completely unexpected to come from Peck, who's always playing the nerdy fat kid in a semi=funny show. Now he's high, suicidal, looking for some love and a huge seller of Pineapple Express. He's a dark one and that's why we're interested in his story, mostly. Sometimes I was getting depressed out of my mind at all of his misfortunes, but overall, it worked. It's a solid performance and now I can see Peck in Judd Apatow styled comedy, funny/serious. Good one Peck, hope to see you in some more roles that I won't trash after a minute of seeing them.

At last I've seen The Wackness and the film's a good one, besides the fact we're not given the full power it could've displayed. But I'm giving props to writer/director Jonathan Levine for doing some interesting work, Josh Peck for starting a new path as a serious actor and the fact that Ben Kingsley has been five movies this year, four out of the five considered good, a great act here, my favorite in War, Inc. Definitely recommending the movie, because it has a lot to offer and tries to pull is into this catastrophe we call our world and seeing it in a different, a little more dark light. I'll more than likely forget about it after writing this, but so what, it was worth to write about and I'm saying see it when it comes to a DVD store near you, I don't know how the heck people can find this........legally.

The buzz was big on this one, I don't know why, but Hamlet 2 showed some promise from the beginning. And while it's disappointing for the most part, it still serves up a whole bunch of funny moments in odd and interesting ways. Steve Coogan is brilliant in the lead and shows us he can carry a show on hos own, with a bit of Amy Poehler and Elizabeth Shue to back him up. Hamlet 2 isn't exactly worth the hype it had a while back, but it's something different to watch if you're in the mood, a wierd mood.

Finding a good horror movie these days is tough, thanks to Hollywood's craving to make them crappy and a waste of your money. Sometimes we have to steer away from those dang Hollywood productions to get a good taste of horror and that's the case with Splinter. The film certainly has that B-movie quality to it, but the story is far from the B range, because it keeps you wondering and immeresed with these characters. Don't be expecting top-notch special effects, because this after all, is a small budget effort that does go far. And while the supernatural things are creepy, most of the intensity comes from the characters and how the actors portray them. They do a good job and make a few people stuck in a gas station, with creature things outside trying to kill them, even more intense than it sounds. And the overall film is scary, and not for people with a weak stomach. Why, well a lady gets ripped in half if that doesn't sound gross enough. But luckily the gore isn't the centre of this horror flick and Splinter ends up being smart-scary movie that may be hard to find, but worth the search for all you fear fans out there who miss the days of The Shinning and Psycho.

We all know that nothing can compaire to the majesty of Wall-E, the film that will be the year's best animated picture and one of the best films of the year in total. Igor couldn't have come at worse time, way before Halloween and after that God-send of amovie Wall-E came out, so the competion was fierce. Unlike flicks like Space Chimps, Igor still does manage to give is something unique and quite satisfying. It can get a little heavy handed at times with discussions of dieing, but everyone's a monster, they all have to have some creepy in them. The voice acting Igor is really good, more notably the performances by John Cuscack and Steve Buscemi. They all offer some heart in a movie that could've gone direct to TV with the hype it didn't garner. The animation also isn't anything special, but it is unique to say the least. Michael Jackson is unique though..... hmmmmmmm., maybe unique isn't always great but here, it isn't bad. Igor mostly runs on its functional story and nice acts by the cast, but come next year, it'll be as forgettable as that movie with those a, um penguins that,um, did that dancing stuff, what was that one called again?

Simon Pegg is awesome! He's the guy that made Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Run Fatboy Run such great movies, making the dry british humor more appropriate for multiples audiences. Pegg does this again with How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, without him, this movie would be nothing. Sure, the supporting cast is great, but Pegg is the one that gives us all the laughs and makes the story seem more clever than it really is. It's worth checking out and even though there's Jeff Bridges' coolness, Kirsten Dunst's smartness and Megan Fox's hotness, it would've been just another lame comedy with an attractive name. (Example: You Don't Mess with the Zohan)

Sex seems to have always been a basis used for comedy, because there's just something so interesting and funny about it. Few films like Knocked Up and The 40 Year-Old Virgin really get down to the core and true humor about it, but some other movies like Y.P.F., do well enough to stand on their own. This is quite a funny movie, even though there really isn't a solid story, only a bunch of random storylines that give you different perspectives on the topic at hand. Some are more funny than others, some are more serious than others, there's a balance between the two. Your outlook on it is going to vary on what you're feeling at the time. These stories on their own wouldn't really work, a few lame short films if that makes any sense. Together, they make a good comedy that covers a lot of ground and the performances are charming enough to keep it going. Y.P.F. isn't for the squeemish, so be ready to see some things that are little "odd". Overall, it's something to check out, if you're up for a whole bunch of crazy.

I've been a major fan of the Narnia book series since I could read the set of masterpieces. C.S. Lewis was an incredible writter, his imagination unlike any other, far different from Tolkein or moviewise- George Lucas. Lewis' beautiful words brought us into that magical realm known as Narnia, far better than the first film could. And though the material is handled a bit better in Prince Caspian, I'm still not seeing the magic.

Well the gangs back, Lucy, Edmund, Peter and Susan Pevensie along with a few, actually many new friends, including the centre character of the story, Prince Caspian. Seeing them again was kind of like a class reunion, a group we haven't seen for a few years with a couple of new faces to top it. You got your talking animals and little people, they're all great. Speaking of little people, Peter Dinklage is my favortie part about this movie. It's his character from most of the other films he's done, only he has a british accent and has access to a lot weaponry. During all the epic action sequences, I was asking myself: "Where's Peter Dinklage?" Maybe that's not a good thing, being the only highlight besides water-jesus, but he was awesome. Prince Caspian was a great character in the books, not as much here. Sure, girls think that Ben Barnes is good-looking but besides that, he's just okay. Most of this movie is just okay. There's really nothing in it to make you go "Lazy Sunday" about it. Overall though, the charming Pevensie kids do shine again, just not as much as Peter Dinklage.

I was very diappointed with King Miraz's character. He's like the Sandman of this movie (Sandman from Spider-Man 3) who isn't that hateable. Tilda Swinton as the White Witch was the best part of the first one, she was menacing and truely evil in that film. She gets her cameo, but it's not much and she's not even mentioned in the credits. A pitty really, being no great villain to give you the chills like Tilda Swinton.

The thing that's handled best in Prince Caspian is the beginning. It perfectly sets the story, better than the first. They got right to it, making it all the more effective. Movies with slow endings do usually have a payoff in the end, Prince Capsian is opposite of that. Beginning= great, the rest= well better than the first.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the action scenes were too much. Not in a gory way, but in a "takes away from the story" way. That's all this film centres on. What happened to the amazing depth of the novel. It's been replaced by the Hollywood Blockbuster way. One thing that I can't agree with though is that people think it's chessey of how the kids know how to fight all of a sudden. Narnia is a part of them, when they enter, what they've learned triggers and comes back to them. That's how it was in the books and I'm glad they transferred that to the movies who need as much original Narnia as possible. Superb special-effects do drop the jaw, but the jaw ends up becoming too sore from all that eye candy to chew.

Director Andrew Adamson has finished his run on the Narnia series, that's really a good thing. I find he struggles to translate the novel to the screen by not giving us a proper balance. In the first he didn't give us enough, in this one, he gave us too much. Water-jesus though was too much done right. I laughed at that part, I don't care if I wasn't supposed. So the great cast is all back in Narnia for a second time, this time being a little more enjoyable but not the epic Disneyland adventure we dream of every single day. All it needed was a little more Dinklage.

Will Ferrell is amazing. He can turn the most absurd concept into a film you'll wanna watch again and again and again and again, except when he's acting random. The only film he could not save was Bewitched, because in that piece of sh**, he was not random. I'm usually in love with a Ferrell film after I see it, but this time I had to think deeply if I had actually liked this one. I thought and pondered, but then finally came to a conclusion after it torchered me in my sleep. Could Will Ferrell have saved yet another bad looking film?

Will Ferrell has done it again with Semi-Pro, but by a semi-mile. The story just seemed so lame, lame, lame, lame. His other films, like Ricky Bobby and Anchorman all looked stupid, but ended up actually telling an interesting, funny story. In this case, the trailer showed it all, and basically, the film was saved by character moments and a random slap-stick session here and there, but I hated most of the characters. That really sucks, I can't stand a movie with bad characters and this movie's full of them. What actually saved this film from sucking, besides Will Ferrell, is the last 15 mintutes, which were the funniest and the team became likable, so were the commentaters. Will Arnett and Andrew Dally are good, but not that great. They could've been the highlight of the film, but it just didn't turn out that way.

Another thing that was completely retarted to have in this film, was the F-word every-minute. It was as if they were trying to get an R rating for Ferrell again, but it just doesn't work, it's not really funny for the most part. Besides, I bet Ferrell is admired more so by the younger audiences, that is where most of his cash comes from. Unless he will star in a film like Superbad or Knocked Up, where swearing creates great humor, stick to PG-13's Will.

Semi-Pro could've been amazing, but decides to slip past mediocrity only by a little. It's not horrible, it's not great, it's somewhere in the middle. It's a bad story gone sorta good, but I'm actually glad they didn't base it all on Will's character Jackie Moon, but also Woody Harrelson's character Monix and his struggles as a basketball player. But there's just not enough here, not enough laughs or good plot. Will says this could be his last sports movie, God I hope so.

Don't knock me down for this, but I had EXTREMELY low expectations for Twilight. For one thing, I'm not a fan of the series, another is, I'm a guy and I'm not gaga for Edward. But I believe it's because of my EXTREMELY low expectations that Twilight, not all that bad. Throughout the whole thing it felt like an 80's B-movie, but done well. Visually it's nothing special and it's as deep as you'd expect from a blockbuster, yet there's a certain charm to it. Most characters lack development and the two we really get to know are wierd but likeable. Robert Pattinson though, seemed a little to creepy to me and because of his character and cheesy lines, the film can fall into the awkward zone constantly. Yet, there's some story and the romance is believeable as far as believable can get, but it wont gather a new horde of Twilight fans. If you're not a major fan of the books and hadn't a whole lot of interest in seeing it in the cinema, it's worth a rent at best. Besides, it can get a little wierd with your girlfriend screaming whenever Edward comes on screen. Sigh.

Righteous Kill is made by the same director that brought us 88 Minutes, a movie that was pure trash, a complete waist and one of the worst movies of the year. A story struggling to make itself serious isn't a good thing for the film its in or the people watching, 88 Minutes couldn't decide if it wanted fries or the onion rings. It left us with nothing, aside from Al Pacino's okay performance, but his hairdo through it off most of the time. And so you can probably see why I was hesitant to see Righteous Kill, Jon Avnet sucks, I don't care if he made Fried Green Tomatoes, he sucks! Anyways, my hopes for this weren't high in the slightest, even though Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, two great actors, were in the same movie. I guess I can give thanks to my low expectations that made Righteous Kill a serviceable crime drama for me, and the excellent duo of De Niro and Pacino.

De Niro and Pacino are what drive this movie to the level it's at, I can?t say this enough. These two very good here, together and apart, they both remind us of how they've made their mark in film history. Both are nowhere their prime here, but the fact that they're still great when they're not at their best, really says something about them and Pacino brings the thrills without that dopey haircut that he had in 88 Minutes. I swear, I think the guy that did Tom Hanks hair in The Da Vinci Code did Al's in 88 Minutes. The two also have an awesome chemistry, they actual feel like an authentic cop duo, an edgy one at that. The people around them aren't much to recognize. Carla Gugino does some alright work here, I've never considered her to be anything special when it comes to acting, but she does the best she can to support her key and quite fascinating character. Donnie Wahlberg, who I wish was in more movies, does a great job here as does John Leguizamo, everyone else can drop in the forget box. Have a question though, why 50 Cent, the guy can't act, I mean have you seen Get Rich or Die 'Tryin', yeah, that title just reeks brilliance. He was obviously a poor choice to play the bad guy, because you have trouble taking the bad guy seriously in the end, really they should've given it to someone like Cuba Gooding Jr. or something, a strong method actor, but no, they had to settle for twentieth best or something. The cast otherwise, is a good one, with two great leading actors in charge of things.

I'm going to have to go back to 88 Minutes again for just a second. 88 had no story to live off of, 88 minutes happened in two hours and Pacino's character treats it like a walk in the park until the last five minutes, which end up being like twenty minutes. Here, we have at least a workable story, a little off course at times and may be hard to follow, but this entire movie requires a good chunk of attention to get it. The film surrounds more so around the characters than mystery and that's a good thing, the mystery isn't anything special or startling and when you get to the climax, you kind of get that 'whatever' feeling towards it, if not a little satisfaction. But I found Righteous Kill to be more about the people, their struggles within rather than the ones around them, those were more intense than any killing scene or disturbing moment. And I think it?s because De Niro and Pacino are such great actors, it works that way by mistake, a beneficial mistake and that makes the ending more tragic than it could've been. These are characters to route for in a story to forget, but heck at least the story is a tad bit smart, at times.

Righteous Kill is an enjoyable time at the movies, if you're into character pieces than hardcore murder mysteries. It never touches the wow factor but will leave you in a state of interest for most of the ride. Jon Avnet has sort of redeemed himself with his latest effort and gets him into the good books for now, but the lameness of 88 Minutes will never leave me for as long as I live, so I still slightly hate you Jon Avnet.

It's creepy enough, but the mystery was lost in the middle of the film and the nding wasn't quite applaudible. Still, it does a better job handling the genre than most other films.

All-Star Casts always have the chance of saving a movie that has the high potential of being bad. An All-Star Cast saved films like Walk-Hard, but some just couldn't cut it, like in The Golden Compass (Man that was BAD!). The story here in Street Kings isn't a very great one to begin with, but with some fairly good acting and entertaining moments flooded with big name actors, the story isn't the part you pay most attention to.

Like I said, the story isn't bad but we've seen better before, much better. The whole thing doesn't get cooking until the last twenty minutes, which makes the film worth to watch all the way through. There, the story finds its strengths, sadly that isn't really a good thing. Still, there's some things to really like about Street Kings.

Some people think Keanu Reeves is miscast, but he does a fine job. A bad thing about his character is that he's openly a rascist and makes it difficult to cheer for him when he's on his quest for vengeance. No one in this film is killed unless they're African-American or Asian, with one exception (hint, hint). I don't know if some of the rascist things in the film were intentional, but it's sorta there at moments.

Nothing is wrong with Forest Whitaker's performance. Absolutley nothing. Just because he's not playing a character who pours out all his heart and makes you wanna cry, doesn't mean the performance is bad. The real depth of the police chief character reveals itself towards the end, again most of the good things near the end of the film. And you know what? Chris Evans isn't playing a spoiled-brat this time. Evans has finally broken thorugh his typical roles into something different. Don't expect anything dramaticly spectacular from him or anything, it suits the film with what he does. The only performance I thought lacked greatness was Hugh Laurie's. Basically, he was playing House only without the cane.

Street Kings has a pretty nice style the appeals to different audiences. A huge variety of cultures and interesting situations give a little something for almost everyone. Some people may find a rascial tone, bit I didn't find that intentional, so people shouldn't instantly become offended.

The film has some pretty cool action scenes too. Violent and over the top. Kind of like Shoot Em' Up but less wacky when it comes to realism. If not the cast then the action scenes save Street Kings from being a failure.

Overall, Street Kings starts off with an okay story to a better story, but having to wait that long for it to get better doesn't completely cut it. The cast and action scenes save it for sure. So, if you're looking to see something quite entertaining and thinking isn't really what you have in mind when watching the film, Street Kings makes an adequate popcorn flick, besides the issues that greatly affect it.

Horror movies suck! They suck very much! They've sucked since the 90's, nothing groundbreaking that everyone will remeber has come out, well maybe some of George A. Romero's movies, but nothing to become an instant classic. The Ruins, is not one of those scary films you'll wanna watch again and again and you'll never stop getting scared from it, but compaired to every other film of its type to come out this year, this one's the best. Still, that's not saying much.

First of all, the beginning is so attrociously bad, it may want you to leave the theater or go see Prom Night, but that would probably make you want to leave too. It starts off just like all the other so-called horror films with bland characters and terrible and I mean TERRIBLE acting. But if you sit through that really bad beginning, it'll end up paying off in the end, maybe.

The Ruins is creepy, but it's not what you'd expect. These people aren't travelling around a forgotten civilization and getting killed one by one. They're stuck at the top of this sacrifice/temple structure with killers with guns at the bottom of it, waiting for them to come down. I liked this concept, it works quite well, stepping away from the cliche approach and giving us something new. I loved the fact that the plants were the vicious creatures attacking them. You won't see people getting torn apart here, but trust me, don't eat while you're watching this film. Just buy a drink and skip the popcorn, some of the things in The Ruins are amazingly disturbing, which is another good thing about it.

The acting though, is bad. Especially by Shawn Ashmore, who's usually great. The best thing done when it comes to the acting was the screaming, some of it was haunting. Everything else was flat, bland and was unworthy of our attention. Jonathan Tucker gives a great performance in the final scene though, which was my favorite part of the movie. The ending was so well handled, it's perfect. Of course, this one's based upon a novel, and those kind of adaptions bring some of the best endings. The fact that this movie was based on a book, helps you realize how a good story really brings the good scares.

The Ruins is overall, a creepy movie, with major flaws but has a lot to offer when it comes to scares. You'll either feel closterphobic during moments or disturbed by the fact that the plants around you love feasting on humans. The Ruins does pass as a watchable horror film, but don't expect anything terrific.

Through the decades, there's always been the "so bad it's good" flicks. We watch theses movies, know they're really not that good, but something in them makes you like it. I had a case like that with this year's Fool's Gold and surprisingly, I've experienced it with What Happens in Vegas.

First off, I actually prefer this over Fool's Gold for a few reasons. Kutcher and Diaz are very good in this movie, not extremely funny, but charming and definately entertaining. Unlike the Hudson and McConaughey duo, instead of a mild chemistry, Diaz and Kutcher have a very convincing chemistry, one that this film wouldn't survive without. Acting wise, Diaz was good but it wasn't her best. I actually found this film to have Kutcher best performance in a long time. He gives the most of the humor, which isn't much, but everyone's very likeable, everyone. The way everyone interacts with eachother is a convincing and enteraining thing watch. SNL's Jason Sudeikis is a nice surprise in this movie as well as Queen Latifah, though both of their screentimes a brief. I really wished I could've seen more of Latifah as the marriage councilor. She added a little more to the story and a good actress like her deserves more than to be just a small character. She needs to get into some better movies.

The story in What Happens in Vegas had potential, it just can't grasp that. It sticks too close to the formulatic comedy we've all unfortunately come to know over the years. The formulatic comedy is portrayed just a little better here, which makes it just a little funny. For me, if you expect the the thing to happen, it isn't as funny when expected. Harold and Kumar 2 kinda proved that a little back, but I still liked that one, it's flippin Harold and Kumar. Anyways, What Happens in Vegas is quite formulatic, but tries to stay away from it as much as possible, which says a lot of good about it.

In the end, this movie's not HAHAHAHAHAHA!, more of a hehehehehehehehe, with some great performances and likeable characters to top it off. If you were to choose between Speed Racer or What Happens in Vegas, I'd go with this one, you'd be getting something that actually makes sense and still entertaining, not something that's just a bunch of special effects put together with a thread of storyline holding it in place. It's a gamble worth taking.

I tried to view this film as an adventure film that contained a few laughs here and there, and it worked. I kinda enjoyed this movie, just because it was fun. Yes, the story was weak and the chemistry between Hudson and McConaughey wasn't completely believable, but it all worked out in the end. I laughed and was interested in it the whole way through, though McConaughey had to take his shirt off every scene, so that wasn't very necissary, though a girl takes her top off so that pretty much made up for it. Either McConaughey is obsessed with himself, or that Andy Samberg was secretly an executive producer and whenever they asked Andy for an idea, he would say: "Hey Matt, lose the shirt!" Whatever the case, the film's not that bad and I can't quite put my finger on why it's so hated. Overall it's an okay film, but there really isn't much treasure to be found in Fool's Gold.

There's a bunch of horror remakes out there who fail to grasp the power of the original, and remaking one that was horrible to begin with is even tougher. Quarantine is one of the few that succeeds, slightly, but slighty has rarely been done better. Rec is apparently a classic, though it sure isn't old in the slightest. Rec is just another great example that some of the best stuff out there's coming from places that aren't Hollywood. Quarantine is Rec, but Hollywoodified, or dumbified. What helps it is the consistent authentic feel to it, that Cloverfield style that seems to become an obsession with filmmakers. The acting can be embarrasingly bad and tough to watch, but when every line is screaming, it can take a heavy toll on the ones involved. The huge problem with Quarantine is the repetiton throughout, we constantly see the same thing over and over, and it grows tiresome. Same scares don't scare the same way they did the first time. If the acting was a little better, perhaps it would've been a little better. Still, Quarantine can pack a punch at times, through all of its predictive flow. It can be pants crapping and hair-raising and the back story makes more sense than most handheld camera epics. So take a look, you may jump a bit from all those rabid children bouncing from every corner.

I got to see this little movie before it's opening day on the 18th. Originally I had no intention of seeing this flick because the trailer made it look so cheesy, loud and terrible. Given the opportunity to see it, I thought: ?Ah, what the heck.? After seeing it, I compared it to that lame trailer. Yes, it's cheesy, yes, it's loud. But terrible, no, not in the slightest. I'm going to tell you though why most of the guys aren't going to have a blast watching this, I sure didn't that's for sure, and I'll tell you why everyone else will.

First off, Mamma Mia! can be categorized as a slight chick flick with a whole lot of Abba. Most of the scenarios I didn't really get into, too much stuff that speaks to the girls, I'll add ?mature? girls. This is like a High School Musical movie for people with taste, I pity the dudes who like High School Musical. But like I said, it's has more of a mature edge to it that makes it stand out a little better. I can see it now: Swarms of middle aged mothers coming into this show, having the ?time of their life.? The fact that I, a HSM and Hairspray hater kinda enjoyed this is saying a lot, yet it's still not my cup of tea. Al I could hear were the girls singing along in the audience, which was most of the audience, but women deserve this kind of movie in a summer of superheroes and talking animals, something that's not just for the kids. I recommend people who aren't fans of musicals, leave this one alone, there's something better out there for you. So basically, the girls will fall in love with this while the guys just lean back and mutter: ?Meh.?

Performance wise, this movie's pretty solid, but nothing Oscar worthy to be found. Amanda Seyfried steals the show throughout with her witty attitude, deep eyes and attractive smile. Meryl Streep was good, if not a bit annoying. Her and her friends really made me feel like I was watching a movie exclusive to women, there's simply nothing to relate to for us guys. As for the three possible dads, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and whoever that other guy is, I don't care, they're just their for extra corniness. Singing though is something these actors and actresses have done very well, justifying the Abba songs. Pierce Brosnan though, his voice sucks, plain and simple. Hillary Duff sounds more musical when she sings, not always choking on mucus or something.

To match the wonderful filming locations is the cinematography. Really well done and captures the art form Abba's songs can bring. I find it amazing how Abba's greatest hits work so well with the storyline. The film does the songs great justice by sounding good and ?looking? good. The dances in Mamma Mia! are a step above HSM, there's more to it and feels authentic and real. Of course, it's just as bad as HSM when it comes to people randomly bursting into song, but at least it doesn't look bad when that happens.

So,I guess I kind of liked Mamma Mia!, mainly because it works for the most part. Still isn't my cup of tea, but I have nothing against it. Go out and see it yourself, especially the Abba fans, big to small. Will I watch it again, no, but like I said, the women deserve a movie like this, and I guess the guys too, if they aren't afraid of the risk of bursting into song.

Before watching this movie, I wasn't an X-Files fan and I knew nothing about it's history. After watching this movie, I'm still not an X-Files fan and I know nothing about it's history. But what little does that mean coming from a none believer like me? I kind of knew in the beginning this second X-Files big-screen mystery wasn't going to be anything special or memorable. Because I'm not a fan of the series, you weren't seeing me jumping out of my seat like everyone else, it was kind of lonely, but then again, all the people I knew who were crazy about this were over thirty. It's funny though, I ended up seeing it anyways because I wanted to ?believe? and well I was a little surprised that in the end, it gets the job done for this none fan, mostly for the performances and that little touch of creepiness.

Apparently, the X-Files has mostly been about aliens and inspired by true incidents. The original film was like an epic storyline about the whole alien thing, the big mama of what the series was based upon. In the sequel, we step away from the whole E.T. business and move on to something different, quite different. The so-called historical background I Want To Believe is actually based upon something real, I mean there's a video from 1940 that shows the entire thing, it made me want to hurl. But the film takes this disturbing history and played around with it, in a somewhat predictable way, the twists the film has doesn't come from the supernatural element. It's more character driven than anything. It's plot is quite predictable overall, which I heard has ticked off a few people, besides the fact that this flick doesn't conclude the whole alien business. Luckily, I'm not a part of the fan club so this didn't bother me, it actually made me appreciate the plot more. Chills come a little more into play when we know this kind of crazy-supernatural thing happened and maybe still happening to this day. Predictability completely hurts the story in the long run though. The third act is when it becomes a more sharp and scary movie to watch, it sucks it takes so long to get to that point. Overall though the plot delivers a little something for everyone, I'm just surprised the X-Files fans aren't offended that it steered away from it's roots, the close encounters of a third kind.

Like I said, the film's more character driven than anything and most of the weird happenings are to do with the characters, where the story does it's best work. What helps with that is the strong performance by David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Billy Connolly. First off, it seems like Duchovny and Anderson have been doing this forever, which they have but it really shows. They've got that built up chemistry that the film relies on, and their stories are just as fascinating as the mystery. Billy Connolly also makes an amazing, really out there performance that at least deserves him a Golden Globe nomination. He does whatever he can to make the character one of the more disturbing aspects of the story and he ends up being THE most. It's just a same he won't be back for the next one.

In then end, this film has a few good thrills, excellent performances and a historical inspirational that scares people and puppies alike. I'm probably going to forget about it after I write this review, but at least it was worth writing about. See it X-Files and non-X-Files fans, your chances of liking this aren't as high, but give it a try. Keep on going Chris Carter and give me an X-Files mystery I want to believe in.
I've been told that I Want to Believe is done like an extra long episode of the X-Files, but not that great of one. But if each episode of the X-Files is like this movie, than that must be one awesome series.

Man, this one was a hard one to think about. Usually when I finish a movie, I instantly know what I feel about it. With "Zohan", not so much. It took me a couple of days to figure out if I liked this movie or hated it. The truth is, I didn't like it and I didn't hate. It was....... it was....... I HATE this word......... (gulp)...... MEDIOCRE!

This may seem odd, but this is my favorite Adam Sandler performance since Happy Gilmore. Sandler works hard to give us an outrageously outrageous and funny performance and he pretty much pulls it off. The fact that this performance is so unique compaired to the usual Sandler act adds a little more to this movie, something that kinda saves this movie from being bad. You can also tell that Sandler gets a kick out of doing this stuff, unlike everyone else in this movie. I find when someone acting in a comedy is actually trying, it makes it all better. Sandler is great here, but why in this movie?!

Zohan's kinda funny, mostly at specific parts involving him showing off his army training. Judd Apatow, who's one of my favorite filmmakers right now, wrote this script and there's some "Walk Hard" moments here that you can completely see coming from him. Any of the moments of Zohan pulling off any stunts will more than likely be the main thing crowds get into. Otherwise, most of the funny parts are what you saw for free in the trailer. Let's say this movie's funnier than Drillbit Taylor, but there's something else that completey messes up the movie.

The pacing in this film's completley terrible. The first half hour works the best and that's when you're gonna laugh the most. I remember that I actually couldn't stop laughing at the beginning, but the bad pacing came along and that's what I think hurt most of the humor. It was either going too slow or too fast. there just wasn't a balance. The ending in this movie's pretty lame, unfunny but a little sensible. I think the ending's what could've saved this movie, but I guess the whole heart warming thing wasn't suited for this type of film. Director Dennis Dugan hasn't really shown us that he's a good director yet. With The Benchwarmers, Chuck and Larry and now Zohan, the first two were okay but he hasn't given us something great like Superbad or Hot Rod. There's still hope though, I mean at least they were all a little funny. Rob Schneider finally gets out of his cameo roles in Sandler films and becomes a partial main character, but one that's not too great.

So......... is Zohan good? No. Is it bad? No. Is it MEDIOCRE? Yeah, that sucks but yeah it's true, but it's kinda funny for the most part, but there's still a lot of messed up things with this movie. I still gotta give it a miled recommendation, it all depends on your point of view. Zohan definatlety is the best 2 1/2 star movie for me this year so far and it was close to a 3 but just couldn't reach it. Sandler fans: See it. Other people: Go see Kung Fu Panda or better yet, Smart People. Good luck with finding that second one though.

Why is Samuel L. Jackson amazing, well let's think about it. The guy can make something completely bad, better than what it was before. Still though, some films like The Man and Freedomland, are just too awful for anyone to handle. And so, I guess in this case Sam Jackson does that exact thing again, making something more enjoyable to watch, since he has that certain presence. Lakeview Terrace isn't necessarily completely saved by Jackson, but without him, that wouldn't have been good. As I write this, I'm pretty sick, so things may not come across as I'd like them to.

Righteous Kill was another film I just saw recently, one that was also saved by the actors, Pacino and De Niro, and it proved to be an alright movie, but nothing special or worth noting, a shallow time at the movies if you prefer. Sam Jackson is fantastic here, more than ever actually, unfortunately the material he's given, begins as something interesting and slowly turns into something else. But Jackson's performance is solid here and a pleasure to watch, unlike the most of the movie. He makes the most with what he's got, I can't really say the same thing for everyone else though. Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington play the cute, oh so boring young couple next door, very, very cute, very very boring and completely stupid. Wilson and Washington are only acting in the family comedy range her and for this type of film, that's quite unacceptable. Jackson works off to being the only source of pride the movie has and he can be a blast to watch. But there's some cases where he isn't much fun to watch.

Lakeview Terrace begins as something smart, interesting and engaging. Jackson's character is great off to start but there's a few problems with him. The fact that he's a racist really hurts the image of the character and when you aren't really interested in the young goody goody couple next door, who's left to cheer for. Not really anyone except for Jackson without the racist moments. Jackson also proves to be a scary guy to watch here, chilling in most scenes and average in others. The balance to the corruption of his character his a muddy one, but doesn't leave you completely bored. There are other opportunities to be bored with this film. I'm personally a Sam Jackson fan, so I slightly and I mean SLIGHTLY enjoyed this film until a certain point. Remember Hancock, the superhero film that started off great and ended with a horrible climax. Well, that's the same case here with Lakeview Terrace, only it isn't quite of a catastrophe like how Hancock ended. The climax is lousy, improbable and extremely cliché. Lakeview Terrace starts off with some smart thrills and sub-interesting character conflicts, but the stupid Hollywood blockbuster style kicks in, hurting whatever you though about the film before the climax. There's no originality, will leave you feeling angry and in total, makes no sense. Random is an even better word to describe it, a bad random.

If you're a Samuel L. Jackson fan, check out Lakeview Terrace, for you others, it's worth a skip. Really, there isn't much reason to see this either than Jackson, everyone else is bland and uninteresting. Jackson's character is very difficult to like sometimes, and the climax is one the worst one I've seen since Hancock. Yet the thrills and the story in the beginning and middle are genuine and feel right. This is definitely a better piece of work from director Neil LaBute, who last time did that horrid remake of the Wicker Man, but still has a way to go. Lakeview Terrace is a good concept gone kinda bad, but you Sam Jackson fans out there should enjoy his latest role as a bad-ass cop, but the endings going to make you even madder if you're a fan of Sam.

Eagle Eye was definatley a big one, with a perfect all-star cast and a director that proved his talent with Disturbia. What went wrong with this movie? Almost everything in the second half. Eagle Eye starts off very smart, smooth and filled with stellar action and intrigue. Labeouf and Monaghan lead the rest of the great set of people who are giving their all to keep this thing interesting. It begins on an interesting, believable note, but at the halfway mark, it descends into a whole lot of confusion and lack of focus. The plot twists are too abundant, the action becomes too mixed up and the ending is so ridiculously out there, you'll forget you're watching the same movie. It copies the style of the Bourne flicks, as do many other thrillers now a days, but who could blame them, those movies are awesome. I just wish the unique aspect of Eagle Eye made more sense than it did, it might've become a more enjoyable experience. That's even worse when it starts off as great and becomes something bad. The movie overall isn't bad, because it doesn't have a clear of coherient structure, it makes it difficult to recommend. Go ahead and try it, I might just lack the proper intellegence to get this movie.

Will Smith is at the top of his game these days, and for very good reason. In 2006, he got a second oscar nomination for his powerful portrayal of Chris Gardner in The Pursuit of Happyness. Last year, he did a fantastic, nearly one man show in I Am Legend, which was also deserving an oscar nomination. Now, he comes along with another blockbuster, quite quickly in my opinion. Hancock looked cool from the start and had a very awesome cast to top off that awesome looking action. Finally it's out, opinions are soaring and I haven't seen opinions so diverse since Spider-Man 3 came out. The movie starts off extremely entertaining with a laugh a second and special effects that don't look that bad. It's epic and hooks you in, typical summer blockbuster style, but something happens in this movie that pushed it to only a mild recommendation.

The cast in Hancock is actually perfect. Not one flaw in casting or anything, everyone fit?s the part. While Smith isn't giving us the best performance of his career, he gives a character we can sympathize with, even though he can be a jerk. Smith does bring on the comedy, he?s like an extra-lazy Super-Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, that?s a good combination trust me. Charlize Theron also gives a solid but direct performance, and looks flippin hot to boot that. Sadly, I really don't like what they did with her character in the end. It's not a bad change, but it isn?t good either. The guy that steals the show in this one is definitely Jason Bateman, who is so freaking funny you might forget this movie's about the Hancock character, but in a way that's not a bad thing. Bateman's getting pretty big in his career, Juno just being one of the few movies that?s made him even better. Another good thing about this movie, is that there's a lot of good character moments the whole way round, which makes everyone more loveable in a sense. One of the scenes in this movie I'll never forget, I was laughing until I was crying, and then?? well, I don?t want to mention what usually happens to people who go beyond crying when laughing so hard.

And with the summer blockbuster comes the action scenes that we see all the time and they all start to look the same after a long while. Another nice thing about Hancock is that the action is definitely different from what we?ve seen before. It makes us wonder why Super-Man Returns couldn't of been that cool looking. Lots of people say that the special effects look bad and lots of other people say they rock, I'm kind of in the middle of the opinions, like this whole movie. There are plenty of moments where Hancock looks great, the hero flying through the sky, smashing almost everything in site and kicking some bad guy butt. Other times, it looks cheesy. When I say cheesy, it isn't a horrible kind of cheesy, it?s cheesy like "We?ve seen better in Spider-Man and Iron Man." But most of the time, the movie looks cool and the action is actually non-stop, when there's not a laugh to come around. I have some problems with Peter Berg's style, especially in this movie. He used the same handheld camera tricks in The Kingdom and I wasn't even too excited about that cinematography either. Here, it really doesn't work, because it really isn't needed to add any intensity to the action. Actually, it's used more in the none action scenes, which doesn?t make much sense. Otherwise, this one's a joy to look at and packs on the fun.

So Hancock sounds like a pretty great movie so far, at first there's absolutely nothing to complain about, except for Peter Berg's camera style. But even the greatest of movies have imperfections, but this one's imperfection is like a major slap to the face. Make that a punch to the face. The climax of this moving F***ING lame beyond belief. Even before the climax, some of the events before it are quite stupid. Worse, they don't make any, Any, ANY sense and what does make sense is complete garbage. Maybe a kick to the balls is even better in describing the climax. It just didn't work for me because it completely doesn't relate to the rest of the story. It's like you're watching a TV show, then that aggravating cliff hanger comes along, the episode says "To Be Continued...." and the next episode with all the answers is about something completely different. And it kicks you in the balls really hard. With a change to pace, questions left unanswered and the story just beginning to get off the wall, the climax is the one thing that keeps Hancock from being the best it could've been.

Still, you should see this movie, now that many people have warned you of the sudden change in the films story. It?s a fun film, not exactly worth the theater time but a rental, DEFINTELY! If Will Smith's your hero and you really want to see him another movie, see Hancock, everyone else, you've been warned.

Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language and an awful climax that may effect all respect you have for this movie

I'm going on record first to say that I was completely against Rob Cohen directing this film. He's like a Jessica Alba of directing, in other words, he's extremely, immensely shallow when it comes to storytelling and class. When you've got movies like Stealth and xXx on your resume, you ain't impressing no one, if I may put it that way. Anyways, he's the guy that can screw up a franchise, or start one and have a bunch of lame sequels follow, that don't have the same actors. I'm going on record though to say that I was in support of another Mummy movie, unlike everyone else out there. The first two Mummy films were a great, solid way of escapism that had at least a few smarts in there to back it up, the dumbness would follow. It's also been the year where Brendan Fraser has come back from his string of small films and into the summer blockbusters, too bad it hasn't been a terrific comeback. Journey to the Center of the Earth wasn't bad all, better in 3-D, but it wasn't anything special. His latest, the third Mummy, has been given crap from critics and people alike, claiming it's shallow and weak. Um.......... hello, look at the first two, that's what the Mummy's been all about, Rob Cohen just took that to his level, a much lower level. And while Cohen has probably killed The Mummy series officially, I gotta say, I kinda liked this one, not exactly sure why, but there are a few, and I mean FEW, good things about it.

They've said there isn't even a mummy in this Mummy, what a load of bull. Just because it's not rapped in a bunch of bandages and walking like Frankenstein, doesn't mean it's not some form of Mummy. This film takes place in China mostly, the bad guy is not in a mummy rap, he's trapped in this stone covering thing. And he still comes alive with all magical powers, threatening to take over the world. Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is way different from the first two, that much is certain, but that typical Mummy feel is still there, and it's kicking. The story goes beyond cheesy when it comes to Abominable Snowmen being called in by a girl to beat up the bad guys, magical healing when one of the characters are about to die, people turning into animals, armies of dead people fighting each other, the fact that the actor who plays Alex O'Connell in this one is only 13 years younger than Brendan Fraser, who plays the dad. Yeah, it's a mess, but that's something to expect from this type of flick. I you thought the first two were believable compared to this one , get a life. At least the fun comes around every corner and that's what all that matters at all. I will admit, it does become cheesy in a freaking bad way at times, but Rob Cohen's responsible for that. People hate it for that reason mostly, but people liked Transformers, so why would you think any differently at this one?

I can't say the gangs all here, because no one's really familiar except from Brendan Fraser and John Hannah. Fraser's still great, giving a funny performance with a lot of good one liners. Replacing Rachel Weisz is Maria Bello, who does quite the lame British accent , pulls off a pretty good Evey, a little more soft spoken but still alright. Fraser and Bello have that chemistry the originals had, just not as strong unfortunately. Like I said above, Alex is way too old, way, way, WAY too old, it just doesn't work that the actors that portray father and son are really thirteen years apart. That's as worse as it gets. Replacing Imhotep is Jet Li as Emperor Han, the immortal king who can spit out flame and turn into animals. You'd expect Jet Li to do some pretty intense action scenes with his martial arts talent, but all he gets is a sword fight with the talented Michelle Yeoh, but that's it. Why have Li in a film where he barely gets to show his moves that we would've preferred instead of magic? The martial arts could've done wonders for this movie. I don't know, you would've been better off getting a good actor like Yun-Fat Chow or Ken Watanabe, though Watanabe is Japanese . Overall, the odd casting choices do hurt the movie, but really there's only one extremely important thing that does make the dumbness work a little better.

This film is a lot of fun. Mummy 3 doesn't wow like the first two, do to the okay good but not great special effects, it seems that they focused on quantity rather than quality. But it's a blast to watch, when the special effects are on and off. Brendan Fraser really likes us to laugh at all the things he says and he does that again, once again though, less so. Every thing's less so, dumber than ever, yet the eye candy and humor will help you feel you are in a Mummy movie. There's been a few scares in the Mummy series, this one has none. You get the creepy looking animals and zombie Chinese people, but it's more cartoon set ups than creeps around the corner. What really saved this film for me was the ending, the final, climatic action scene where there's a mix of swords and machine guns. The sequence is great, filled with wondrous images and intense action. The camera tends to focus on a shot either too long or too short, the balance is uneven, but you won't be focusing on that flaw when watching it. Overall, when a movie saves the best for last, you can say that much good about it, though you have to have enough to support the rest of the thing.

In the end, Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is a mighty hit and miss, due to poor casting choices and the hardcore cheese effect this film radiates. Yet it radiates that with extreme pride and that's when you're supposed to like it. I can see why people are hating this, Mummy 3 is the weakest of the series and has more than likely killed the series, though the fun comes a long way to make a somewhat entertaining flick, worth a rental at best. Nobody put it better than Roger Ebert: ?It was just plain dumb fun, is why. It is absurd and preposterous, and proud of it.?

The Secret Life of Bees has "loads of drama" written all over, from the buzz to the movie trailer, you can see it had the feel good look to it. But can drama become too heavy for a movie that looks so friendly and perfect for the family. Apparently yes, The Secret Life of Bees is packed and I mean PACKED with the emotional rollercoaster overtones and stereotypical performances. I'm usually a sucker for this kind of movie, because they're an escapism from the realities of life. This film is continuously throwing these dark and heavy events that may cause the weak to acutally flinch. A family this struggles to be, there's too much to handle, way too many times. Perhaps if it was lightened up a bit, there would've been a great flick here, but I guess the filmmakers wanted this to crush you hard. The Secret Life of Bees has another problem, and that's shockingly Dakota Fanning's performance. For one thing, it just seemed to much like previous performances by her, only with a stronger southerner accent. She also over does many of her parts, and it doesn't quite feel all that real. Fanning still a prodigy of a young actress, but the same trick doesn't usually work twice, except in Will Ferrell's case. Everyone else is great and there's a strong message within the piles of emotions, but not even the ending is satisfying enough after all that weight was put on your emotions. The Secret Life of Bees had the makings of being great, it just needed a little more toning to get it right. It's not bad and it's not good, but check it out if you're prepared to get smacked in the face with a whole lot of drama.

Cadillac Records can be put into the "Nothing Special" bin, because we've seen all this stuff before and done a whole lot better. Sure, it's stylish and the acting is good, but the plot lacks a cohesive whole and just pounds us with an array of historical facts and over the top drama moments. And because of this, it's a beautiful mixed bag that could've been better if the plot was structured a little more. Musically impressive, but not much else.

Star Wars has always been a big part of me, been a fan since I was able to watch movies. Jurassic Park ended up being the first film I ever watched, made me crap my diaper, A New Hope came after that, then the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, I was hooked on the things. The lightsabers clashing, guns firing, space ships flying, R2-D2 with all that beeping and booping and that ever so powerful opening theme song. Star Wars is popular and loved by many for a reason, it changed the way people looked at movies all those years ago. For me personally, A New Hope brought me into a world that helped me spawn my own imagination. The Empire Strikes back made me appreciate depressing sequels and not cower when I see someone's limb getting chopped off, and made me fear my father. When my dad told me to eat my vegetables, I'd eat them right away, too me the butter knife looked lethal. Then Return of the Jedi gave me the opportunity to see a girl in a bikini for the first time. Good thing Princess Leia wasn't attractive or my parents would've had a problem. Then the prequels came along and aside from the Phantom Menace, I actually like the prequels more than the originals. The stories just seemed so much more fun and R2-D2 got to do show off his moves, those mini jets on his legs were great.

So when I heard they were making another Star Wars movie, with George Lucas as an executive producer, I was like: "Yes! I knew it wasn't over yet!" Then I found out it was animated: "Cool. So they're taking a different style to the series, animation is a smart way to go." Then I found out it was the pilot to an upcoming series: "Ummmmmm..... well maybe they know what they're doing, this could be an impressive looking series in the works." Then I watched the trailer: "..............................." I watched the trailer again: "......................................." And then again. "................................ aw #@&%!" Yes, I wasn't impressed with the look of this film, the animation was beyond crappy, there didn't seem to be a functional story present and that stupid little Jabba the Hutt baby was disturbing, worse than that monstrosity Jar Jar Binks. And so, with the lowest expectations since Meet Dave came around, I went to see this so called thing you call a Star Wars movie, or a movie in total.

Star Wars Clone Wars wasn't a good idea to begin with, and I began to see that when it was announced as an epic pilot to the upcoming series. It's been released anyways, perhaps a crime to the casual eye, or a gift brought in a different style wrapping, I view it as both personally. Clone Wars isn't a horrible film in the slightest, when you don't consider it to be an official Star Wars episode. It basically has two problems, but like all animated films, it relies on these things to work. The animation is complete crap, even if it is based on TV show standards, but hey, this is a motion picture, put on the big screen, where details are noticed more frequently and need to be something pleasant to look at. Clone Wars presents bland imagery, that is so unlike the Star Wars universe, which is filled with so much eye candy it'll take you years to catch it all if you tried. And the character movements are atrocious, have you ever seen a lightsaber fight when all they do is wave their arms back and forth? It almost feels like they were trying to make it fugly beyond belief, but heck, it looks better than Space Chimps, but that's still not saying much. Wouldn't have this been something if they made something along the lines of The Final Fantasy movie, you know, with good animation.

Then there's the story, that bland, heartless story that relies on stupid new characters and senseless scenarios. A dorky Jedi Knight chick who can't do anything, a self-conscious Anakin Skywalker, a Jabba the Hutt baby who's dieing of aids or something and an English speaking Jabba the Hutt girl are just some of the many horrible additions to the saga that George Lucas must've came up when he was smoking reefer and watching Bunnytown. I'm sorry Mr. Lucas, but how could you permit this? And then there's the fact that this story fits absolutely nowhere in the Star Wars saga, not even a bit. It's like they forgot that they were working off the masterpiece it never could be (Star Wars III) and wrote up an insult to the fans. The Clone Wars actually has a more serious storyline than the Phantom Menace, but cut Jar Jar Binks out of that one, you got something serious. However though, while Clone Wars has two strong cons, there's a few pros that may save the experience for some.

The voice talent is great in Clone Wars, and it helped that original actors such as Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Daniels and Christopher Lee came back to reprise their roles. It would've been nice if they brought Hayden Christensen, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman back, but I guess they weren't desperate enough to do something like this. Clone Wars does deliver some interesting action sequences that would've looked better in live action, but in animation, it still looks okay. The action does make it a tad entertaining, depending on your pain threshold towards lame stories and weak animation. And I must admit, in all of its stupidity, that Jabba baby was pretty cute.

Some people say George Lucas has lost his edge, becoming the enemy of fun and such and I didn't believe them until now. I still don't know why he allowed this to happen and perhaps I never will,but still, Clone Wars manages to be at least forgivable if you see past the flaws. The spirit of Star Wars isn't something easily capturing, especially within animation, Clone Wars proves that to us even more. So treat it as a completely different thing than the originals, something friendly for the kids to enjoy and adults to sleep to. It sure makes for an epic TV pilot, but even if it was just on TV, still wouldn't have been that great.

This is a truly sad thing to bring up, a hard thing to say. The Other Boleyn could?ve been one of those rare films that dazzled and inspired the whole historical-drama genre, leaving us craving for more knowledge of the troubles or our past. Unfortunately, this film is just a little above the word terrible, more like a highly mediocre attempt at a fascinating story would describe this better. It?s an epic, VERY epic soap opera you could basically see everyday on TV, and it would be a really bad episode.

The story is set before the time of queen Elizabeth. It starts off as two sisters, very close sisters are to be introduced to King Henry VIII (Eric Bana), who?s a complete jackass. But one sister, Mary Boleyn (Played actually very well by Scarlett Johansson) becomes very close to Henry, who?s very injured after falling of his horse. (I laughed) Then end up making love, she gets pregnant and she?s already married and other crap like that. Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman) the OTHER Boleyn girl, ends up being jealous of her sister, then tries to get close to the king, and they end up fooling around, Mary gets ticked, Mary?s jealous then, Henry ends up hating both of them, they fight a lot, everyone has babies and loses their heads to guillotines and everybody cheats and the king?s a jackass, yada yada yada!

This formula sounds familiar doesn?t it, commonly used for the cliché soap operas we?ve come to know. That?s all what this film is, SOAP OPERA: THE MOVIE. There are so many twists and turns, it gets extremely hard to watch and even care. I know many of these events are true, but the way they?re portrayed, it?s just pitiful and unsatisfying, One cliché after another makes this film painful to view and predict what?s going to happen next, which isn?t difficult. The set pieces are great and authentic looking, so are the costumes. There?s a good mood and look to it all, it?s beautiful to look at actually, but the shortcomings of the story and some bland acting make the imagery the only thing that saves this film from complete failure, except for one other thing that should be noted.

I enjoyed Scarlett Johansson?s performance, it was the one that shined. The acting through the picture was dumb or effortlessly played, but Johansson shone above all. She doesn?t even have the real British accent, and hers was the most believable. Such passion came from her, she truly took Mary Boleyn to heart. Natalie Portman on the other hand, wasn?t horrible, but not magnificent like Johansson. It was llike most of her roles of this genre, dramatic and emotional, but she?s the same in almost every movie that involves her to wear an old fashioned dress. She?s like the Will Ferrell of historical dramas, she never really changes. Now, I have to talk about Eric Bana. Weak, very weak. Bana never pulls this role off, it just doesn?t suit. When you think Natalie Portman?s too plain, remember Bana, who added to the weakness of this film. He?s a good jerk of course, but not the kind Henry VIII would?ve been. It?s an unfortunate case of bad casting. Everyone else, not worthy of mention.

The Other Boleyn Girl has the hardest time working out and never grabs the raw power it needs to stay worthy of our attention. And I still can?t quite figure out why the Boleyn sisters would want to do Henry, when he was such a jerk. The worst point of this film is the terrible number of clichés filling every scene, every moment. In total, it?s not a horrid piece of trash, otherwise I wouldn?t be saying much about it. Basically, it?s just a soap opera you could catch on the tube without having to drive to the cinema. I gotta say though, the ending was cool. It ended it all.

I'm a big fan of City of Ember, the novel, which was a fun-filled, comprehensive adventure that had the oppurtunity of being made into a great movie. Then I heard the movie was actually being made, and I was looking forward to it. Then I heard Gil Kenan was directing it, the man that brought us the awesome Monster House and when I learned of this, I went from looking forward to it, to excited. But sadly, even with all the talent behind it and, City of Ember turned out to be just another forgettable book to film adaptation, why, because throughout the entire beautiful ride, it was just as slow as Lovers Tunnel. Remembering the novel, it was packed a ton of edge of your seat moments. not guns and explosions, but more fast paced with what was happening. City of Ember captures everything from the book but that highly adventurous feel, which was a huge part of the book. In case you still don't know what I'm talking about, it was boring, most of the time anyway. It's a shame, the kid actors perfectly fit the bill and we got to see Tim Robbins and Bill Murray, only not as much as we would've wanted to, especially with Tim Robbins. I just watched Shawshank Redemption again and that film reminds me of how worthy Robbins is of screentime, that movie and Mystic River remind me. City of Ember can also be a wonderful film to look at, thanks to Gil Kenan's amazing vision and faithfulness to the source material. Put in just a bit of action and we would've had a solid movie here. I'm still not giving up on Gil Kenan though, he's still a new director, City of Ember being is second film and Monster House still wows me to this day, he just has some learning to do, but City of Ember is in no way a bad film, the cast is great and so is the imagery, it only needed to go a little beyond that to get strong form of escapism. It's a lightbulb that dulls a little too quickly to really shine.

I really, REALLY hate it when good talent is wasted in a movie that doesn't deserve it and that's unfortunately the trouble with Pride and Glory, a cop drama that starts off strong but ends up being as messy as a brutal crime scene. The two things that usually push a film like this in the right direction would be the acting and storytelling, but aren't done properly. Edward Norton and Jon Voight both give something notable and worthy of mention, but everyone seems like they were given brief look around the city and had to try to immitate the most cliche sounding residents. And Colin Farrell's accent is horrible, which isn't quite like him, since he's such a great actor (Check out In Bruges if you don't believe me). But where Pride and Glory mostly faulters, is the story that doesn't work as a solid whole. You get too many dramatic moments, cliche situations and events where you think: "WHAT?" We've waited four years from Gavin O'Connor's latest film and it isn't the powerful comback I was hoping for. Pride and Glory isn't a horrible movie, but it just doesn't do enough right and goes in a lot of wrong directions. I seriously wouldn't trust these to protect a city, wait maybe that's the point. Well, I guess that's one thing Pride and Glory got across.

When you here this tagline"From the guys that brought you Scary Movie or Epic Movie or Meet the Spartans" you know you're in for one lame, brain numbing and patience testing piece of work that you'll never forget because of how bad it was. Whenever I think about Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie, my brain gets blended into a smoothie for a moment then I feel the sudden urge to barf, but this time, after watching Superhero Movie, that feeling still hasn't come over me, does that mean this one didn't blow?

Superhero Movie is not a deep puddle of dog-piss like it's fellow spoofs that came tragically before it, making this one a film no one would have high expectations for. Perhaps that's why Superhero Movie didn't completely suck, because expectations were low. It still isn't a great movie, nor good, nor okay, almost mediocre, but it does not combust into crap like the others, not that much anyway. Besides it being short and lame at parts, I actually laughed numerous times, and by that number, 10000000000000000000000 more times than I did at Scary Movie 1-4, Date Movie, Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans put together over a million times then multiplied by a trillion to the power of 99,999. It's really that much more funny than most spoofs out there. Drake Bell was surprisingly good, he pulls it off just right for the tone of the movie. Not to technical or deep, like everyone else. It was great seeing Brent Spiner again, we haven't really seen him in anything since that disaster "Master of Disguise". It sucks his talent's being waisted in movies like these, but at least he's in one again.

Besides that scene with Pamela Anderson, Leslie Neilson pretty much saves the film from being completley lame. His scenes are quite funny and the twist involving his character will shock Spider-Man fans and superhero-fans in general, but don't worry, it's funny, like half of the movie. Neilson's 80 something now, and the fact that he's still acting the way he did 20 years ago, is great! Keep on going Leslie!

I gotta say, director Craig Mazin is the saviour of this horrid genre, giving us hope that something like Sci-Fi Movie or Spoof Movie or whatever can be still made can be made well. His script is dumb, in bad ways and good ways, it works to the best of its ability. In my opinion, he should make all of these movies, because the Epic Movie and Meet the Sparatans filmmakers seriously lack in talent and don't have a life and are probably flipping burgers at McDonalds as we speak.

Overall, Superhero Movie is partially saved by low expectations, for most that may be the case. Please do so, you may slightly enjoy it, there's good humor here, just try to be in a good mood. I'm serious, this one may surprise you.

I'm going on record to say that I was against this remake from the beginning, it was destined to fail the moment we all saw the trailer. The thing is, because of my low expectaions, The Day the Earth Stood Still wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Keanu Reeves isn't the problem here it's just the way the story's told and that there's a lack of anything breathtaking or memorable. And Will Smith's son is really annoying here, to the point where he makes it difficult to watch. He's a good actor, but here, he nags more than a dog who wants its chow. The Day the Earth Stood Still isn't a bad movie, it's just another example the classics should never really be remade, unless you have the right people behind it.

Severly dumbified

Now let's talk about this other little movie I saw one night. It's not necessarily a bad movie, but I can't seem to figure out why I didn't completely like it. Finding Amanda was this little film I got to see the same time I saw a brilliant film called In Bruges and maybe that?s one of the reasons I didn't like it that much. This movie's coming to theaters on June 27th (I don't know how the heck it can stand to Wall E or Wanted), but I got to see it ahead of time and I'm glad to tell you if it's worth it. And the truth is, I don't know.

We got Matthew Broderick and Brittany Snow, who play and uncle and a niece, both with major problems. While Broderick's character is trying to find his niece (Snow) in Vegas to try and get her to rehab, we wonder who needs rehab more. Taylor Peters (Broderick) is a television writer and has a drug, drinking and major gambling problem that leads him to losing his wife (for the whole movie, no redemption whatsoever) and going on a search for his prostitute niece for redemption. Brittany Snow plays that prostitute Amanda who tries to keep her life together and does a real crappy job at it. You'd think that they'd learn something from each others experiences while bonding and helping each other out, but they just get into more trouble that causes something unfortunate. The characters end up being very unlikable.

I guess that aspect of Finding Amanda really hurts it in the end. You are routing for these characters to get better and you want to love the relationship the uncle and the niece have, the actions they do make it incredibly difficult. There's really no shot at redemption for anyone here, at least nothing's shown. Perhaps Broderick's character learned a bit from the niece's actions, but in the end, he's still very screwed up. It all begins with promise but the payoff just isn't enough. Here we have Brittany Snow, a very cute girl who you want to love and route for, but the film makes it so flippin hard that even her looks can't save it. Besides those two characters mentioned, no one else it likeable either. They're all such jerks or they aren't charming and everyone's mean to eachother. It's also weird watching the guy who did the voice for Simba in the Lion King, swearing like Bruce Willis in a Die Hard flick. Yet there were a few little things that didn't make this movie horrible.

It's a comedy, a mixed one at that but brings us a few laughs here and there. Writer/director Peter Tolan has worked on many successful comedy shows and movies like Home Improvement and Analyze This, but also a lot of failures like Stealing Harvard and Guess Who, this guy's had a long but rocky career. Finding Amanda marks his debut as a film director and can I say he has the potential to be something good, but he gives us such a mixed bag we don't know completely what to think of it. I hated the characters and the overall execution, but there's plenty of smart humor and some form of heart that'll take a lot for people to find. Some people have been liking this one a lot actually, but mostly for the humor which I guess was the main point of this. And I'm not saying the performances are bad, but even if a bad guy is played right you can like the bad guy in some way. You should really like the good guys don't you think?

So, I guess Finding Amanda isn?t a bad film, but it isn?t a good one either. Most people may like for its humor, but when you look beyond that, there?s really nothing. That?s a real shame because I like Brittany Snow and Broderick?s okay, but after this movie, I?m never gonna look at Ferris Bueller's Day Off quite the same, the guy swearing that much just really messed up my original image on the guy. Maybe you should go check out this movie when it comes out, at least after Wall E and Wanted are checked off on your ?want to see? list.

Jason Statham is one of the smarter action film stars out there, his choices in scrips aren't. Seriously, after seeing this guy in The Bank Job, I'd thought he turned a new point in his career to more sophisticated narratives. Ain't happened yet, he just had to do another Transporter movie, and it ends up being one of the stupidest films of the year. Jason's still gives a solid performance, that's rare to say about most action stars. The story though, is a disaster, particularly in the introduction of deep/shallow romance this series simply didn't need. It seems a lot like another Jason Statham film called Crank, which was much better. And the action is nowhere near as good as the firsts. Occasionaly it's impressive, but action can only take a film so far. Newcomer Natalya Rudakova is simply terrible and brings this film down to its knees. It's bad enough she's a lame actress, but she isn't even attractive, which can make Transporter 3 unbearable to watch at times. This truely is a lame attempt to bring complexity to the Transporter series, romance just wasn't needed in this saga, neither was Natalya Rudakova, officially one of the worst actresses in my books now. Better luck next time Jason, what's next, The Bank Job 2?

I hate it when critics are right, when the film they speak of is bad and not worth seeing. I base my opinion on what I see, but after seeing Speed Racer, I'm still not sure of what I've just seen. It's a movie hard to describe, but in a bad way. The children will love the cars flying off the ground or doing some other random things that we've seen in other movies like Spy-Kids 3D and such, but I must admit it was done better here. If you're a little older than perhaps a 12 year-old and you want to know about Speed Racer, let's talk.

I guess one could say that this movie has somewhat of an all-star cast, with Emile Hirsch, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon etc, but if you have a whole bunch of these A-List actors, you should expect them to act a little better than giving cardboard performances. I know this movie's based upon an anime cartoon and anime doesn't quite inspire brilliant character motivation, but you need something there in order for you to be interested in the characters. Through history, it's been proven that acting is one of the crucial things a movie needs and Speed Racer lacks in that, among other things.

The script in this film is very bad. When a movie has dialogue worse than the cartoon it was based upon and a story that's too confusing for kids and too stupid for adults, you've got something worthless here. What's even more of a shocker is that the Wachowski Brothers (or whatever they are now, one of them apparently got a sex change) are responsible for this mess. They were brilliant for the most part with the Matrix triliogy and great with V for Vendetta, but with Speed Racer they can't seem to find the magic they had before and just throw in a bunch of crap that makes Transformers look like The Godfather of our time. This is truely a dark point in the Wachowski's career. What sadly makes it more sad is that their style towards filmmaking, kinda messes up this movie even more.

Imagine the Bourne series, with it's sometimes nausiating style and add tons of colors too it, futuristic cars and an annoying anime style, you get
Speed Racer. Anime isn't a bad thing at all, but the film keeps way too much of your average cartoon elements and adds things that should've been left out or never even thought of. I DESPISE how the scenes cut to the next. I hate the random heads of people changing the scene or angle and the dialogue they say is completley useless, most of it at least. Sometimes you'll get a very colorful sequence, which suits what you're watching, then it'll go into something that lacks color or polish which doesn't piece together that well. What this style does quite right though, is the racing scenes.

I believe kids and adults alike will find the races a blast to watch, if they don't throw up first. This is where the Wachowski magic came into play. Some of the best races I've ever seen in a film are unfortunately in a movie that doesn't desereve them. They're wacky, cartoony and completely fun to watch. At times the mash of colors and quick shots may start a slight headache, but they're usually tolerable, just don't eat while watching the movie unless you have a strong stomach. It's a blast seeing these unreal cars doing unreal things, excecuting acrobatics in the air, launching hammers and machineguns from their trunks, it's a feast for the eyes. The action isn't good though when everyone breaks into random kung-fu mode, it's very lame to watch. Okay, okay it was cool to see the monkey beating up a thug, but overall, those fight scenes were lame. Unlike Transformers, this film still couldn't be saved by the action.

Perhaps expectations were too high or the movie isn't all that great after all. Whatever the case, I didn't quite enjoy Speed Racer as I should've. It needed a solid story and shouldn't even be put into the same league as last week's Iron Man, a truely great summer blockbuster that gave us the smart performances, good action scenes and the solid story that every movie needs. If there's going to be a sequel to this someday (which there really should be) give us something that works, something that will make us want to shout: "GO SPEED RACER GO!" Not: "NO SPEED RACER NOOOOOOOOOO!"

I've had a pretty rough week, not being able to go enjoy watching a film or two, life just seems to get in the way all the time. The night I was able to see both Shutter and Drillbit Taylor, I became phsyced and didn't care about the lame reviews both films got. But now that I look back, I should've seen Drillbit first, because Shutter is one of those movies that makes you wonder why we even bother to go see movies since they're so predictable and well........ lame.

Let's look back at the Eye, another stupid movie that was not entertaining whatsoever, and it was also a remake, which Shutter is as well. I don't understand why Hollywood continues to remake all of these original horror flicks, which weren't that great to begin with. I got to say though, Shutter is one of the few better attempts throughout HISTORY. The typical two elements in most of this type of film are Bad Acting and Bad Storytelling. Shutter has only one of those elements, Bad Storytelling. I didn't have a problem with most of the acting in this film, especially Rachael Taylor's performance as Jane. She brought a sense of realism to her character, unlike Jessica Alba with her character in the Eye. Alba has the looks but lacks the talent, where Taylor has a bit of both. The final act seemed a little rushed when it came to the acting. The characters seemed too comfortable with the surprise ending too quickly, it was quite rushe and not very affective, which hurt the film REALLY BADLY! Speaking of the surprise, let's talk about the story, oh joy!

Nothing quite makes sense in the film, which makes either a bore to watch or frustration and a headache to top it. Everything's everywhere, The Matrix made more sense than this film. A times where it does explain what's going on, you feel like: "Wow, how lame. What was my motivation to see this again?" The twist at the end....... prepared to be underwhelmed. The stupid commericials and previews give it pretty much all away, making the ending, the last stand for this film to be worth it, worthless. It's so expected, you'll probably role your eyes in disappointment.

There certainly is a style to Shutter, that does make it creepy and affective, sometimes. There wasn't many jump out of your seat moments in the movie, the camera shots were typical, but what you end up seeing can take you off gaurd. If Shutter can at least make you jump, then there's something to admire, if only the story could back it up and make it all better.

It's unfortunate how Shutter has turned out, but it just goes to show we yearn for the days of The Shining and Psycho to return, a movie that will truely stir our minds and scare us silly. Maybe one day we'll get a film as brilliant as those mentioned, but for now we'll just have to wait. Perhaps moviegoers have already seen it all..............

I hate it when movies make sex something stupid and only for the narrow-minded, especially when the movie has no brains to begin with, losing all hopes you had to begin with. Sex Drive, unfortunately, starts off great, really great, with really likeable characters and a ton of laughs that make you think, "Wow, this movie will be the funniest sex comedy! ever" Not so, it turns out those same jokes pop up through the entire thing and not only do they get thin really quickly, the whole movie gets thin really quickly. It's vulgar, to the point where it's senseless and useless, showing the true genious of the writers, which is zero to none. Say your friend was going around yelling a joke like, "Clay Aiken, more like CLAY GAYKEN!" so many times it, gets annoying. Sex Drive is like a friends screaming a lame joke in your face every minute, really uncomfortable angering. I love guys doing crazy stuff in donut suits and hot girls as much as the next guy, but too much is too little, except the hot girls thing is welcome. James Marsden is amazing in this movie, a light in the dark if you will. His character's a creep, but more likeable than the others, and he's always something this movie really isn't, FUNNY. Then the two random characters Randy and Andy add some good chuckles when it's needed. Like I said, the characters can be charming, it just needed the humor to match. Even Seth Green is forgettable in this one, so many forgettalbe, over done things. If Sex Drive was like the first twenty minutes, it would've been set as great roadtrip flick, but the trip's cut short because of the vehicle (the story) gets lost and takes some wrong turns. Perhaps you'll think differently, I hope you like it, maybe I'm crazy, I just couldn't see anything special about this one, adding it to my list of regrettable and forgettables. Got love those guys dressed up in donut costumes and hot girls though.

Well, I'm glad it's the end of the road for these guys. I know HSM has a dedicated fanbase that will continue on after Zac Efron is 80 or something, but I've never liked this series, because it lacks the charm I look for in a musical. It's basically all about the hormones with this trilogy. And while I admit, this is the finest of the series, that's kinda like a doctor saying to a patient: " You're lethal disease doesn't hurt as much as the others." The terrible acting and lame storytelling are front and centre again, but the musical sequences are all new and improved for the big screen, unlike the rest of the movie. It's plagued with new and boring characters and storylines that just don't get enough attention or we simply don't care about them. By 'we' I mean non HSM addicts. And when the film tries to be serious, it's just so dang funny. I tried not to laugh at Zac Efron's emotional speech at the end, but I did. What Senior Year does do right is the music and dancing. It's still as random as a fish in a tree whenever it comes about, but it's will done and quite entertaining to watch. The plain old singing sequences, not so much. Wel also find out that Ryan isn't gay, that's actually a major plot twist in the film when the nerd hits on him. And once again, the story is so unbelievable it;s unbareable, but at least it's climatic. So it's nice that one thing was improved in the latest entry, but I wish everything else was to. Oh well, the fans will get a kick out of it and that's important and if you're a fan, don't listen to me, what do I know? HSM3 is the last time to see thses guys we've felt we've known for a long, long, long time. Otherwise, value your sanity.

I just don't get it. How can a film based upon the master writer Nicholas Sparks, be so cliche and lack heart. The Notebook properly showed the power of Sparks' writing and depth to his characters. Nights in Rodanthe doesn't give us much to care about in the end, because we knew it was going to happen all along. Richard Gere and Diane Lane are both strong here, but the story supporting their characters gets old really fast, a real slow cooker. James Franco does make a great appearance later on in the film, but it's far too late to save the film when that happens. The stuff that's supposed to make us feel something, doesn't prove to be anything special once we've been bored out of our skull with the hollow romance and stupid teenage kids that are always complaining. When you think about it, it's all too simple to be affective can't seem to tug at our hearts at the right times. I really hoped Nights in Rodanthe would be another Notebook, but it just turns out to be another Message in a Bottle. That means, no good.

Aaron Eckhart really impressed me with his performance Thank You For Smoking and even more so in The Dark Knight, which I think has been completely underrated, though Heath Ledger's Joker was the pretty much the highlight of the movie and the year. But since I had already seen all the Heath Ledger films I wanted see, I decided to look for another film starring my second favorite performer from TDK, Eckhart. I ended up finding one that came out back in June, Meet Bill or "Bill", none of the websites confirm what the title really is. It was a comedy, Eckhart's good at those, and it had an attractive cast of actors and actresses, besides one certain person. While I was watching this thing, I was wondering, aren't comedies supposed to be funny and make you feel good at the end?

Now when I said an attractive all-star cast, I meant strong performers giving strong performances, and then there's Jessica Alba. The thing that's going for this movie the most is the cast it doesn't deserve, the good performances that save it from being horrible, but not from bad. Besides Eckhart, Elizabeth Banks does dome good, Timothy Olymphant, the amazong team of Kristen Wiig and Jason Sudeikis outside the SNL realm. There's a few other I could mention but I don't feel like waisting my time. Eckhart does give an impressive act as Bill, the overweight Bank executive who's trying to cope with the fact that his wife's cheating on him, he's stuck with a kid that wants to hang around him all the time (not his son) and that Jessica Alba is in his life looking hot but acting incredibly terrible, but we all know we don't have Jessica Alba in movies for her acting, heck I'm not paying attention to her acting, she's there so we'll keep our eyes on the screen. Besides the fact that these characters suck, there's an definable chemistry between all of them, which is hard to get in a movie where no one likes each other and the story doesn't really try to bring on chemistry, besides the boy and Bill, but I'll talk about that later. And you know when a movie has great performances to show but they really don't save the movie, like in Freedomland or more recently, The Other Boleyn Girl, that's like Meet Bill, only this one's more of a catastrophe. But you gotta love Kirsten Wiig and Jason Sudeikis who actually shine about the rest even they have like the least scenes in the film. Whenever they come around, that when the movie shines, otherwise it's gloomier than having to watch reruns of Hannah Montana, or watching a new episode of Hannah Montana, whatever you find depressing in life. It's a shame so much talent is wasted here.

Now where the acting is top notch, the story and humor is way off. This guy's life completely sucks, shows that money doesn't buy happiness, or a faithful wife. It's not really funny to watch it, when you feel like cutting your wrists instead of laughing. A couple times I got a laugh, one big one when Bill and that kid he was hanging with were extremely high and were running around a sports department story pushing over clothing dummies and climbing the rock wall. But all the negative stuff, the cheating, the hating, the creepiness, it all showers over what could be possibly funny in which it has a lot of opportunity. Writer Melisa Wallack must've been drinking a couple shots when writing this, when you're drunk and out of it, every thing's funny. You're better off watching this when you're high or something, heck Meet the Spartans would be the comedy of the year if you were high.

The kid though that befriends Bill is one weird dude, not in a good way. I'll start off with the least creepy thing about him. Jessica Alba is his best friend in the movie and he buys her lingerie in the same lingerie store she's working in. There's even a scene where he's wearing lingerie for Alba, if you watch the DVD, which shouldn't, skip this scene, for your own safety, it's seriously disturbing. What's even more disturbing is the friendship he and Bill have. He follows Bill everywhere, his work, the stores, his house, the shower, the swimming, picks up women with him and has sleep overs in a tent. It's not Bill that's the weird one, he asks the kid to get lost quite frequently, until he believes the kid taught him something, that doesn't really make sense in the end, and they start playing with fireworks and touching girls' boobs, not Jessica Alba's or Elizabeth Bank's though. The fact that this kid wants to hang out with this crazy, emotionally damaged guy who's on the brink of loosing it is odd enough, but he's treating Bill like another high school buddy, which makes this film overly creepy in the end. Creepy doesn't spell funny or the slightest hint of a good when watching it.

I don't regret watching Meet Bill or "Bill", it had top notch acting and that awesome moment where Bill and the boy were high, that was great. But thanks to it's unbalanced story, unnatural friendship between Bill and that kid and extremely depressing look at life, it's simply no fun. But like I said, you gotta love Kirsten Wiig and Jason Sudeikis, especially Kirsten Wiig, who are the only ones having fun doing all of this. It's one of the worst of the year, not one of "THE WORST", but one of "the worst", you'll have a better time than sitting through the life killer that is The Love Guru or the hour long near death experience that is Meet the Spartans. I really wanted to like this film, I really did, Aaron Eckhart's done a lot of good lately and I wanted to see him shine again in a movie that shines even brighter than his performance, but what happens when a movie simply doesn't want you to like it? You get something like Meet Bill,a major crap fest. Like Kirsten Wiig and Jason Sudeikis say in this mistake of a movie: "Good-bye and have a Sweet/Sweet Day!" Oh brother.

Another vdeogame adaptation, whoopty dingle do. I was hoping that since it was based upon a stellar game and storyline and starred Mark Wahlberg, it would hold some descentcie against all those other video game movies out there. But again, director John Moore has screwed up another original story and made it into typical B-movie fair. And thanks to Mark Wahlberg and the last ten minutes, it isn't one of the worst of the year..... technically. Max Payne is as messy as the dreams the character has when he's on drugs, not a pretty site. And it lacks that creative ingenuity the game had and goes into the lame Matrix copy-cat territory. The last ten minutes though I must admit were very intense and kept you on the edge and provided some raw emtotin towards the torchered character of Max Payne. And while Wahlberg doesn't give all the oscar-worthy goods, he's still good, as is Mila Kunis, she's just in the wrong role. Max Payne isn't a horrible film, it's just a typical film and that's why it fails to WOW.

I'd like to take a moment to give props to Roger Corman, the god of B-movies, who's returned to Hollywood to make Death Race, probably his biggest film since House of Usher, which was back in 1960.Meaning by that, a film people cared about. But the thing with Corman is that while him basking in the land of B-Movie isn't too admirable, the guy's done 385 productions and counting, a pretty impressive career all in all. And so, marking his 385th, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Corman for doing so much, after all, he's gone farther than most people trying to make it into the lime light. Now aside from that fact, I haven't seen a Roger Corman film I've liked, my taste differs than others when I have to decide between The Wasp Woman and something like There Will Be Blood. Too me, a giant wasp with the head of a human woman can't beat an Oscar-winning performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Anyways, I never expected Death Race to be anything special, except the cast is some kind of freak to be in a film like this, that means the cast is good. I'm also surprised that Tom Cruise spent time to produce this when he's usually trying to make Katie Holmes happy instead. Anyways, I don't like Death Race, not because I walked in thinking it was going to be stupid, but because it ended up being stupid, very stupid.

It seems like every movie has a great cast these days, even the bad ones. Death Race is no exception, with Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Tyrese Gibson and Ian McShane around to make it more than it could've been. The movie doesn't deserve them, we knew that before it even came to theaters. Luckily, each and every one of them give it their all to make it more than just a gunned-monster truck fest. Still, Statham isn't as good as he was in The Bank Job, Allen isn't as good as she was in the Bourne movies and we've seen better Ian McShane in Hot Rod. It's a little of a surprise that they put a lot into their acts, maybe because Tom Cruise was watching them and if they didn't work hard, he'd fire their asses. If you see Tropic Thunder, you'll see what I mean. Death Race brings some of the worst of them too. Statham is back to his lame cliché action persona, McShane made a better polar bear in The Golden Compass than a prisoner here and Joan Allen cussing like Seth in Superbad, proves my point even more that girls swearing all the time is a real turn off. The cast is great, the material isn't, that's not a good combination.

Writer/Director Paul W.S. Anderson has been compared to Uwe Boll talent wise, that's a terrible comparison, Anderson is way above Boll when it comes to talent, but I'm still not saying Anderson's a good director, I'm just saying Boll is really bad. Anderson is one who sticks to his science fiction, video-game like genre, but does a better job than most who're addicted to Street Fighter and Star Trek. Yet in my opinion, he's never told a story worth telling or a film we'd even consider watching more than once, aside from the Resident Evil movies. To my surprise, Death Race isn't your typical bad action movie fare, it has an interesting concept backed up by an interesting beginning. After the beginning, the film transits into a lightning fast race that'll dull the sense instead of putting them on edge. Race after race, pretty much just point A to B, nothing great in between. And when something of interest surfaces, it's usually never explored or even concluded. If you're one for stories, Death Race is AMAZIGNLY not for you.

Now for you people who are all about the action, this movie's KINDA-AMAZINGLY for you. The action is descent, by our eyes are fed the same candy again and again and again. At times, seeing people explode into guts and seeing cars tumble over with a sonic-boom is pretty cool, but it all seems so a like, and at times, very cheesy and unconvincing. Through the whole thing, it seems like a semi-B-Movie, yet that's expected from someone like Paul W.S. Anderson. This is indeed the best film he's directed, but just because it's his best, doesn't mean it's any good.

Death Race is nothing special, it almost seems it's trying to be that way too. It has a cast that it doesn't deserve and brings the worst out of them all, a kiddie-pool deep story and these action sequences so forgettable, simply has nothing going for it. For all you intellectual people who enjoy a film with at least a present plot, stay away from Death Race, Speed Racer made more sense than this. All you people out there who enjoy empty-mindless fun, there's a 50-50 chance you'll see something in it, a rental at best, there's simply no reason to see it on the big screen when there's nothing great for you to see.

Man, I've seen a lot of bad movies lately, most notably, the worst one I've seen in all the history of cinema, out of the hundreds I've looked at, admired or despised, the one I'm talking about has failure written as it's title and man, you can make so many jokes about it. If you haven't guessed yet it's Disaster Movie, which is a film that I'm glad didn't make the top five at the box office, but still, it should have never been released, never made, never even thought of and filmmakers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer shouldn't even have been born. Disaster Movie is an atrocity to mankind and this universe. Watching dying children and feasting cannibals would be more tasteful entertainment than this, if that doesn't sound twisted enough. Forget Uwe Boll, let's end the real killers of film, the guys that brought you Epic Movie and Meet Spartans. But now, I'm here to tell you about another movie, that's a million times better than Disaster Movie, but still sucked A LOT! It's the latest action film from the once talented Nicholas Cage, need a say more? It's called Bangkok Dangerous and besides a few little nice touches, it's yet another miss on the list of recent Cage films.

Why do we like Nicholas Cage, well because we're waiting for that great role that'll get him on top again, so he'll get in the Oscar rush again. But he basically went from Moonstruck, to Leaving Las Vegas, to likes of The Wicker Man, those stupid National Treasure flicks and now the shallow and hallow action film Bangkok Dangerous. Performance wise, Cage is just getting worse and worse. What happened to that deep actor we used to route for, we may never know, but right now he's going way down and his acts aren't helping at all. This as wooden as it gets when it comes to an Oscar winner, Cage is terrible and ends up being one of the worst things this film has to offer, in which recent years, I haven't blamed Cage's acting, only his script choices. Did he get into some kind of car accident and lose is judgment? I have no idea, but Nick is a lame actor now and it doesn't seem like he's gonna improve anytime soon. Besides Cage, no one else gives much of a performance, or says anything for that matter. And so, we're stuck with focusing on the lameness Nicholas Cage reeks and that well tend to bring forth the boredom factor. Paper has more dimension than anyone in this film.

You can expect just about everything else is bad about Bangkok Dangerous and you'd be almost right, but I'll tell you about the "almost right" part later. The story here, is borderline terrible, near incomprehensible and lacks the necessary edge that compels us to watch as an audience and a flare that makes it seem like action movie material. Cage doesn't even seem like a hit man, that story isn't even explored and all of a sudden at the end, he hates his life and wants to end it. Why? Nothings clear, and flat characters who do nothing but kill someone once or go pay a hooker to give them some fun twice, there's little to nothing involving or interesting to be found. And get this, there's a cute romance here, but it's one of THE worst and most inappropriate flings I've ever seen in any movie. You thought Peral Harbor's was bad, just wait, actually scratch that, don't see it. The hit man's falling for a deaf or voiceless woman who makes no real connection to the Cage character and because very act so flat and nearly horrifying to watch, it's not in the slightest amusing or likable. And she back stabs him just when it started go somewhere. Sheesh! Sometimes it's fine to have a mindless action movie, but when it goes retarded or something along that line of pitifulness, we should reconsider waisting our time, our intellect. Directors Oxide Pang Chun and Danny Pang have never been good storytellers, but when they screw up a remake of their own film, where the original was considered to be good, that just doesn't make sense.

Remember that "almost right" part to this movie, well it's the action, there's some descent stuff here and I put an accent on the 'some'. Those Pang people do have style, borrowed from John Woo pretty much, but take that style and use it to the best of their abilities. There's a couple of nice gun fights here and there, short ones, but at least they do something. The fact that there isn't very many of them hurts Bangkok Dangerous, when it's a movie that relies on the action, let's face it, there isn't much of a story to be told here. So while it still falters in that area, the action was still pretty cool, if not, unoriginal.
Bangkok is overall a top notch failure that will please little to none. It seriously was painful watching Nicholas Cage doing the worst performance of his life and that pain seared even deeper thanks to the horrendous story and lack of action. There's simply no sense in how those Pangs screwed up a remake of their own movie, maybe the pressures of making the whole world happy, put this flick into the instant forget bin. Great movies shouldn't try to please everyone, I mean look at In Bruges, offends Americans but makes everyone else happy. No film is perfect, all filmmakers need to know that it will always be that way and a perfectionist can ruin a film by trying to be perfect. Trying to perfect something already good, ain't usually gonna bring you to glory road.

So yeah, it wasn't a shocker that everyone hates this movie, heck I hated it before I even saw it. It's simply a horrible concept rapped around in that Disney epic form. From a technical point of view, this film deserves a Razzie nomination. And so do all the actors who took part in this. WTF Drew? You'll be back on drugs in no time after starring in movies like this. There is one thing though that I appreciate about this movie and that's its message. There's a strong awareness of animal cruelty throughout the film and I admire that the story wants us to know that to. The fact that is displays this message is a great thing and at least it seems to make chihuahua's look cute, some how. The kids and dog lovers will adore this movie, others will wish they were at funeral or something less depressing.

Apparently, this isn't a rip-off of Sex and the City, it just came at a bad time, right after Sex and the City. Still, The Women is horrid, not even women could enjoy this mess. Basically all you can do is hate the whole thing and learn of a few things. Meg Ryan has officially lost it and if Sex and the City didn't do it right, this wouldn't do it either. This movie is a complete waste of semi-talent and rights to classic and successful play. I hated every single character in the Women, everyone is mean to eachother and lacks an interesting core. Bad performances don't help either, it even makes Eva Mendes look old. Overall, it's a textbook case of the typical bad remake that shouldn't be exposed to the countless innocents across the globe. It won't kill you, but it won't make you stronger either.

I've always been really respective to Roland Emmerich. He's never quite made a masterpiece, but some of his films are just great fun. (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow). Then there's is occasional serious film (The Patriot). And then there's some of the crappiest movies ever made which are his creation (GODZILLA! Hollywood Monster). He's one of those directors that's always on and off, not always doing great like Scorcesse and not always bad like Bowl! Man he's horrible! 10,000 BC could've been one of those epics that goes beyond the rest, wowing us with a powerful story and the spectacular action sequences to support it. But I'm afraid, 10,000 BC, barely slips past mediocrity.

I'd like to explain a deep story found in this film, but I couldn't find one. Basically, it's set in the times of hairy elephants and cavemen who are very intellegent actually. A man goes on a journey to save his girl from village terrorists and meets maybe one or two amazing creatures on the way. This is no prehistoric version of King Kong, the main character barely comes into contact with any creatures. He mostly spends time talking to other tribes about matters and family history, which really isn't all that entertaining, actually not at all. There isn't much time for the chemistry between Steven Strait's and Camilla Belle's character, they're only seen to togeth maybe three tines, a few minutes each. This is not a great film for character plot.

Of cousre you think that character development isn't nessisary for an action film, but that's not always the case. These kind of characters, who have no inspiration or facts to base upon, are shallow and uninteresting to watch. Sure they're good actors, but when there's nothing to act for, it's not good.

One of the few things I would've admired about this film was that the action wasn't the centre of the film, but there's simply nothing to like or relate to the characters, besides the bond of love. The action wasn't all that great sadly. The final sequence seemed stripped out of another film and everything between wasn't very thrilling. The beginning action scene was good but short. It kind of made you excited for the rest of the film, yet all we get is a handful of empty promises. I wasn't too thrilled about the visual effects either. Emmerich has done some great films with great special effects, but this one doesn't convince me like the others. In all, it seems like Emmerich didn't put his complete heart and soul into it.

I also really hated the ending. Cliches are bouncing all over the screen, like I said, it's been done before. The events that lead to the ending aren't very clear either. At first they're here and now they're there, why? It just goes to show the story telling is poor, ver poor. THe script doesn't have much to it. It's hard writting something good with your imagination being the background, but you're characters should always been ones you can master, a story you know is worth telling. Some actions films like Transformers can work without a good story, sorta.

Everything seems pushed, like it's all trying to get it over with. It jumps here and there, for reasons you don't seem to care. It's like it wants to be over before you know it, and therefore, you can't fully enjoy it. The acting seems rushed as are the action sequences. Even the music, which is good, just seems to be moving things along, which really hurts the film. Some people may not notice this, but I sure did.

10,000 BC is a hollow attempt for our entertainment. If someone would ask me if I would see this film again just to change my mind about it, I will gladly say no. It blew it the first time. That's enough for me. Overall, it's not a terrible film plagued with stupididty and garbage all around, but the film's just too little for our attention. I wish I could say something more, something good to add to this but a film that wows me deserves more recognition. Until next time Roland Emmerich.... here are my words of advice. "Every action movie deserves at least a little good story."

B-movies, you gotta love them.............. or hate them. There's a fine line between a good B-movie or a bad B-movie and I'm afraid that Doomsday can't decide which side it wants to be on, completely destroying it.

I've come to love british films, especially because of what this year has offered. From the amazing comedy Run Fat Boy Run, to the edgy thriller the Bank Job, you tend to wonder, with the whole US ecomomy crashing, if British films have gotten better than most Hollywood films. After watching this, I can't say that yet. Doomsday is an epic gone wrong. It tries to be something it shouldn't, and it all turns out stupid.

We just saw I Am Legend last year, another film about people all getting killed by a virus, this concept is tired out for the moment. But Doomsday takes this concept and completley screws it up, very badly. The story makes no sence. To think that a great writter like Neil Marshall, who wrote and directed two of the greatest horror films of all time (Dog Soldiers, The Descent) could manage to write something whole and thoughtful. But he's decicded to go the "Epic B-Movie" route, it's just made for money, nothing else.

You get that feeling when you're watching it too. Acting is poor, even Rhona Mitra's and she actualy could've saved this film without her bad "Beckinsale Underworld" ripoff. Rip offs are common in Doomsday, especially the action sequences, I mean haven't we already seen an epic car chase 100 times already, or a battle to the death arena sequence. This film does this and doesn't even do it right. At least Vantage Points car sequence was good. Everything is pure recycled garbage.

Overall, Doomsday suffers from a corrupted crappy story and terrible......... well everything else. It really is a shame that so much potential was wasted, but all this movie is is nothing but a money hog who'll give you something that looks flashy, then you find out it's completley worthless.

There was a quote in the film that describes it the best. "Your sh** is our bread and butter." Please don't give them your money or time, or they'll keep making bad movies like Doomsday.

Meet the Spartans, you've got a new friend already!!!!

August has a good concept, that's one of the few good things I could say about it. Two brothers trying to keep their company afloat on Wall Street a month before 9/11. It could've proved to be a disturbing and excellent drama thats climax would shock and completely take off guard, and while it had that potential, it was completely waisted. A good concept is what brings many films into production, the execution of it can completely ruin it or make it more than it ever was. In this case with August, the director took the script and well, didn't do much with it. Despite a specific highlight that this film has, it's a waist for one BIG reason, it's completely boring.

Perhaps completely boring is an understatement, a huge understatement. This movie is like a twinky without the cream filling, Dean Martin without Jerry Louis, a movie with nothing to call it great. I've come to enjoy dramas these days that are enjoyable to watch, that don't make you wish you were watching Bunny Town instead, and you're not even high when watching Bunny Town. It's simply not entertaining. We're introduced to an interesting point that year, that singer person died in that plane crash, Ben Affleck was checking into rehab, which was kind of funny, because Josh Hartnett's character is watching that story on TV and in both Hartnett and Affleck starred in Pearl Harbor together that year. And of course we're a month away from a major low point in American history, that affected the entire world in one way or another. So why does this film fall flat on it's face when it has so much to back it up. Well, let's start off with the storyline. There's simply nothing to it, nothing that makes as believe in these so-called characters or even believe this was a tense month for the corporate business peoples and such, with no mention or event that leads to what should have been the much needed climax it needed, 9/11. Instead, we got a few characters that lead boring lives and their troubles never fascinated me. Some conflict here and there that never seems to be concluded and a love story that's got as much power to it as the chemistry between Kate Hudson and Matthew M. in Fool's Gold and if you don't know what that means, it's pretty lame. And a bunch of random business meetings are thrown around to just talk about the company issues and that's pretty much what every conversation in the film is about, business conflicts and what happens when you have them. And I find it extremely strange that David Bowie's in this film and his scene is very brief. Why would he waist his time here, I do not know, all I know is that a lot of talent was waisted here.

Speaking of talent, we do have a great performance here. I didn't consider Josh Hartnett an actual actor until I saw this film, but I still don't consider him the guy that picks the best roles. Black Hawk Down is the probably the best he's done when in comes to choice, he didn't have to talk much in that one. Poor choice aside, Hartnett does an excellent job making a boring character more interesting than the rest. He really puts his heart into it, which is admirable, but he could've saved the full reveal of his actual talent for something that deserved it, or a movie that's popular in the public eye. But, I guess it wasn't meant to be. August contains some other good acts, but nothing special. I didn't expect Adam Scott to do such a great job,
all the things I've seen him in were lame. I'm not saying this role is much better, but it beats other things he's done. Man it bugs me that all of this talent is waisted in this movie.

I also would like to comment about the ending, which is horrible. You'd expect something intense to happen when you're foundation is upon 9/11, but it never goes anywhere and 9/11 isn't even mentioned and therefor is anti-climactic, which will drive viewers crazy after having to wait that entire time for something to happen, only to come to something pointless and unsatisfying.

And so, August isn't that well known for a reason, it kills it's audience with boredom. Drama needs to be captivating and at least entertaining, and will leave you with something to feel for it. August brings the opposite of all those things and needed to take the concept it was born from and change it to an actual film, not a bunch of business meetings and a stupid love story put together. None of it works and it achieves boredom beyond belief and it's easily forgettable. I'm so bored writing about this I'm practically got me head down on the keyBORED. Ha ha, I'm so clever.

My Best Friend's Girl is as funny as Dane Cook and as smart as him too. Need I say more? Well, I'd like to give Kate Hudson props for being the only thing in here that didn't stink like compost. The only stinky thing about her is her choice of scripts and that sex scene with Cook. Dane Cook would be lucky enough to get Jason Biggs if that sounds disturbing enough. And this movie's also way to vulgar for even the vulgarist people to enjoy. It's an overwhelming load of crap that just never seems to stop. Kind of like Dane Cook's comedy. What's even worse is that this was no better than Good Luck Chuck and when that's the fact, you NEED to stay away from this. If you're a Kate Hudson fan, stay away from this movie and if you're a Dane Cook, you probably deserve this.

I spy with my little eye, an upcoming Razzie award for Alba. It's overall a stupid movie, VERY stupid movie. It just seems like Jessica doesn't understands her character or why she's in this film for that matter. The best movie she's been in was Awake, which she performed in great. As an actress she's mediocre, therefore she's just a pretty face. The movie itself is pretty lame, but not horrible. The ending does a better job at things than anything else, it's just such an uninteresting film. I need to find film that will defy the basic set of the horror/thriller genre. Maybe there will be such a film released this year, but from what I can see, The Eye adds to the huge collection of films that never succeeded.

Here's a "What If" scenario. What if two guys were each reading a script, one was reading Michael Clayton, the other was reading The Bourne Ultimatum. When they were both done, thet decided to throw their scripts in the garbage, they realized that that's no fun. So they pick the scripts up, tear them into a million pieces and treat the pieces like snow. Then they look at the ground and see and read the mess they've made. They decide to leave the horrible mess behind. Then, director Jon Avnet, who's deseperate to make a good movie again, comes in the room and looks at the floor. He then says: "Hmmmmmm what the hell." He grabs a handful of pieces of them and tapes the pieces together and gives it to a producer who suffers from mental retardation. This is how I believe the years biggest piece of crap since Meet the Spartans came to be. If you haven't noticed yet, I HATE this movie.

Oh boy Al Pacino, you've really done it this time! Playing another playboy who has a wonderful career, making love to your 20 year-old students at the young age of 68. You think you're the smartest and smoothest guy around, but really, you're in a BAD movie. I must admit, Pacino wasn't bad in this movie, acting wise. Otherwise, he completely had no business in being in a film that has so little to offer, unlike films he's done before. After this big mistake, Pacino should get his agent to watch this movie, which would kill the agent instantly. Still, Pacino isn't the problem with 88 Minutes, though I question his choice in being in this crap. The other performace only worth mentioning is Neal McDonough, who plays the man Pacino's character put on deathrow. He really did an emotional and convincing performance, but both Pacino and McDonough just couldn't save this movie. Everyone else sucks let's leave it at that.

The story is abysmal. The first 20 minutes are actually okay though, a good introduction to the characters and what could've been, a spell-binder of a thriller. But after the threat of him dieing and the beginning of the 88 minute mark, a big piece of $#!^ rises to torment the audience. Pacino's character is in no hurry to find out who wants to kill him, he's casual about everything. He frickin walks, never runs, except when he's in a chase sequence, which are so bad....... I can't say it, I wouln't like to swear the rest of my life out of me. The film is corrupted in so many ways such as this. "You have 72 minutes" the mysterious voice would tell him. 25 minutes later into the film: "You have 70 minutes." The plot is attrociously horrid, it takes elements from movies like Michael Clayton and the Bourne movies and strips them down to eye burning scenes.

Have you ever seen Al Pacino run before with two minutes left of his life on the line. We get a nice scene of him running into buildings and up and down stairs for more than two minutes. When I was watching it, I said to myself. "NOOOOOOOOOO! Can this get any worse!" Guess what. It did. The ending is one of the worst endings I've ever witnessed on the silverscreen. It's so uninterestesting and seeing a frail Al Pacino doing lame stunts, like pulling someone up by rope for too long. Boy, that should make Sylvester Stallone scared like crazy. But the events are just too wacked out and don't make any sense. It gets to the point where you just don't care and the surprise ending is no shocker. The entire movie's like this. Random events that trigger something that has nothing to do with the story.

Like, Pacino's sister in the film was killed in the past in 88 minutes. So, what's that got to do with anything? Maybe they were trying to set something up, but one of the pieces of the story found on the floor didn't have that. It's just.......... terrible. The speech that Pacino gives at the end of the film, well I may have used all the negative words I can say right now, it's like the rest of 88 Minutes. If you've survived the whole thing, leave when he's giving the speech, it brings a lethal kill.

Al Pacino, I'm very disappointed with you. You've pulled off a Sandra Bullock who did Premonition, or a Halle Berry who did Perfect Stranger. Your acting is not bad, but it doesn't deserve to be in this pile of garbage. Please everyone, stay away from 88 Minutes. With a running time of 108 minutes, 8 minutes is already too much to handle.

Before I even more saw it, I knew Hell Ride simply reeked B-Movie, even if Dennis Hopper was in it and Quentin Tarrantino was involved with it. Every time I go into a movie, I go with an open mind, because it really doesn't justify a movie when you already know what you're going to say about it, that wouldn't even be fair to the guys who made Meet the Spartans, but there are petitions all over the web telling them to end their careers before they destroy film as we know it. Anyways, Hell Ride, while looking a little on the cheap side, looked like a time where fun could be had, watching crazy bike stunts, an attractive array of girls every scene and some cool mobster killing scenes. No such luck here, Hell Ride turns out to be something along the lines of watching the elderly trying to do a wheely, failing miserably, being a part of a story that simply doesn't make sense and scenes that make sex look.......... weird?

Hell Ride doesn't have a great cast, well a cast that doesn't have anyone really talented besides Hopper or Carradine, but Carradine's character gets killed in the second scene he's in and all that Hopper gets his his shoes pissed on and him falling off his motorcycle. Everyone else here can't seem to realize that they're butt ugly and think harpoons are more affective than bullets. They suck at riding their bikes too and never stop making out with prostitutes. They try at least, especially Larry Bishop, who does everything in this film, acting in it, directing it, producing it and writing it, he doesn't seem to be good at any of those. They're like old people who are going through their mid-life crisis, trying to impress themselves and others, when they aren't impressing anyone, not even themselves. I've been using ?they? too much at the beginning of every sentence, I'm sorry for that but this so called movie doesn't even deserve anything beautiful and bright said about it, it isn't a beautiful and bright film to begin with. What's even worse than the actors, is the story and how it's portrayed.

The story is worse than trying to understand abstract art that was never meant to be understand in the first place. Perhaps a 100 piece puzzle put together by a retarded kindergardner would be even better. It completely is a bag of mixed pieces of mixed up pieces of mixed up pieces. Horrid things like: People are getting killed around every corner, we don't know who the heck they were, there are flashbacks that are never truly explained, a mysterious box that we really didn't know about, the odd fact that this movie was made and some random sex scenes that make sex look weird. Yeah, that's right, sex looking weird, to the point where you may never look at it the same way again. It doesn't even make it look fun, even if it's weird, looks like something painful and unappealing. Luckily, I saw a film called Elegy which cleaned that up a bit for me, but for many of you who won't have Elegy around to wash the images away, stay away from it if you desire your sanity. And Hell Ride is completely the enemy of the guilty pleasure kind of fun, because there's simply nothing eye catching, while the makers branded it a stunt extravaganza. Please, Hot Rod is more of a stunt extravaganza than this, heck Hot Rod is a masterpiece compared tom this. I love Hot Rod, man you can tell that I'm simply having trouble talking about this movie, I'm talking about a completely different, much better film.

Hell Ride is simply hell to get through a waist of my time and should not be a waist of yours. Please take this review to heart, I'm really trying to save you from watching this piece of complete horse sh**! It should have never been released or made for that matter It simply can't make sense of itself and its existence. And to all you virgins, I'm one of you, but I know that sex can't be like that, it simple can't. There wouldn't be a whole lot of people on the planet if it were that case, or that other scenes with this kind of subject matter wouldn't be labeled "gross".

I need few words to describe this film. How does messy and boring sound? Catastrophic and pathetic? Maybe another horrid remake of Asian horror? Go watch the Strangers instead...... if you dare.

When you go into a Vin Diesel movie, you can't have your hopes too high. With films like xXx, A Man Apart and The Pacifier on his resume, you can see that he isn't really up for giving those gut wrenching, life changing performances, that he isn't really known for anyways. Even his name Vin Diesel, alone sounds like something off a car engine, or some kind of gas station. So when I went to see Babylon A.D., my mind was already set to low expectations, good thing to, imagine high expectations with something starring this guy. Sadly, there isn't a whole lot of good science-fiction films out there, the best being Wall-E, but I wouldn't dare compare this to that majestic animated masterpiece thats short film before it was reason enough to pay for the ticket. Otherwise, sci-fi is scarce, it's not particularly my favorite genre, but I enjoy a little bit everything, not counting those spoof movies, the guys that make those things should leave this planet and get lost in space, and they're forced to watch their own films until they die of seizures, which may take 1 ¼ of screenings. Anyways, so the expectation bar was raised just a little do to the fact that sci-fi movies are almost extinct these days, I Am Legend was more of a drama than action flick and Sunshine was an art piece, a good art piece at that, and Clone Wars doesn't count. Sadly, it appears another flick starring Mr. Diesel has fallen flat on its face, and into the pit of venomous snakes and 50's country music, where it really belongs.

I'm sorry, but I've gotta bring down Mr. Diesel again, why am I calling him that, that sounds stupid, but his full name ain't much better. I don't hate Vin Diesel, he's not a bad person, but he's a bad actor. He's so horrid at his so called craft, his career should have died when his character got killed back in Saving Private Ryan, in which I admit, he was good. Here, like in everything else, he's a lifeless statue, that's hot bad he is. His facial expression is always the same, never changes unless he's firing a gun, so about two times. And the tone of his voice is dead, mumbling every word he can, he really doesn't work in the main role, never. He'd make a good bodyguard that never moves and never speaks. That's the kind of role he's be respected for. Probably, he'll end up like Steven Seagal or Wesley Snipes, that's not good. Michelle Yeoh is also in this movie, an actress whom I respect, and she sucks in this one. At least in the Mummy 3 she was good, but here, it's just another paycheck for her and another bad movie in her career. She needs to get away from the bad Hollywood action extravaganzas and into roles that actually show her talent. The only really good thing that's going for this crappy piece of film making Melanie Thierry who really is something to behold. She's got the talent, but no other talent to back her up, her blood and sweat put into this was a complete waist and Babylon A.D. doesn't deserve her presence.

Besides the acting, this film is a disaster in many other ways too, many key things. Babylon could've survived on bad acting, many of Vin Diesels movies have, only not in my opinion. The story is a mess, a boring, pathetic, lost in a corn field, pile of a mess. It starts off with a little structure, brings you into it smoothly and quickly, then slaps you with it's inconsistencies, atrocities and leaves you with unanswered questions that you won't even care about. It isn't clear what's wrong with the world, why this girl is so powerful and when it tries to explain, we end up thinking: ?What?!? It's all such a complete array of complete dysfunction and overall boredom. Speaking of boredom, the action in this movie completely sucks! Seriously, I felt like I was watching a tamed version of xXx, without the snappy one liners or any edge of your seat moments. The action suffers from poor filming, lack of originality and overall excitement. There's not a whole lot of action to begin with, so if everything else is horrible, including the action, what's the point in seeing this? I don't quite blame director Mathieu Kassovitz on the films outcome, because really, this isn't his film. The studios have tampered with it until it forms to their liking and if that's the case, then Hollywood has a serious case of bad taste. Shame that Kassovitz ended up with this, this wasn't exactly his vision and not until the directors cut comes out will we see his vision, though many people would probably be turned off after this cut.

And so, Babylon A.D. is another bad science-fiction film in a time where we need good flicks of that genre. Vin Diesel does his whole typical act once again, even The Rock has more dimension than him. Then again, I don't mind The Rock as an actor, he's a little more fun to watch. In the end, this is a lifeless attempt, with a lifeless cast, story that's as solid as lost game of Jenga and action that makes Barney seem like a much better choice for entertainment. It's crap, don't see it, I beg of you, if you value your life.

The defination of dog sh**. Just when you thought Marvel Comics was having the best year ever, (Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk), they throw this terrible, TERRIBLE movie at you that makes the Dulph version a treat. The violence is distasteful, the acting abysmal and the style is lame. If you want to check out a really violent action film with style, check out Rambo and skip this excuse for an action movie. Old ladies heads exploding all the time, tends to get really old, really fast.

Jigsaw's back and as creepy as ever, but the story and overall film about him isn't so much. I've always found the character of Jigsaw to be a confusing and fascinating character to watch, you simply can't know how truely feel about him, since every movie reveals something new and nerve rattling about him. But in Saw V, the well has officially run dry, joining the ranks of the many horror series' out there. While Jigsaw is still a joy to watch, the story is slow, plagued with characters we don't care about and the gore is a bore to see. And that surprise ending was surprising, but to the point where no one cared about it and were off dreaming about how scary The Strangers was compared to this piece of chat. So do yourself a favour and skip this lame latest attempt at a series that started off with a bang and is trailing off with a wimper.

We all know that Uwe Boll is one of the worst directors of all time, and that's something I believe will never change. I love giving people chances, even if they're complete failures since the beginning, though my sympathy doesn't expand to Pauly Shore's level, which he shares with Tom Arnold and the makers of Meet the Spartans. Postal is based upon a video game, the typical outing for Boll and after seeing it, I can't see this being a video game in the slightest, the story doesn't have that game like structure. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but when you even look at Boll when he's trying to make something feel unique he falls flat on his face, he's just not a good storyteller. Overall I'm one of the few who doesn't hate this guy, he's doing what he loves, making bad movies, but he's getting better. Postal is an example that Boll is becoming more of a filmmaker than visual torture creator, but Postal is also an example that he still has a long way to go.

Postal does have a pretty nice cast, but the things it does with it isn't all that, exceptional, to the point where I just don't get why these guys signed up for this crap, especially when Uwe Boll's name is on it. I can see someone like Dave Foley doing this, his finest hour was when a Bug's Life came out way back, but J.K. Simmons, who's character is killed brutally and his overall screen time was so small, didn't make sense. However Boll does it, he gets some good people to carry out his corrupted dream. Even Mini Me is in this, but no one cares about him since Austin Powers went sour. The film throughout does get the actors running around, doing a lot but that doesn't do anything at all for the movie. I believe that most involved were all in their for just a quick buck. Must admit though, Uwe Boll had a funny cameo in which he ended up getting shot and at that moment, everyone around me cheered. At least Boll knows how to make fun of himself, but not how to take himself seriously.

The movie runs on being extremely vulgar and violent, I have never seen a movie like this trying to be so flippin offensive it boasts about it every second. And unfortunately, it doesn't end up being all that funny. I must admit I laughed maybe about five times, the hardest when Boll was shot brutally to death, but then it brings on a whole montage of kids getting killed, dick shaped children's dolls and Osama Bin Laden taking a break from making threatening videos and watching Oprah, it just gets either disturbing or unfunny. It spends too much time being those things and not enough time being unique, in a good way, there's good unique and there's bad unique, Postal reeks bad unique. And so, when you're not laughing those five times, you're wanting to boo at the bad political satire or barf at the disturbing stuff Boll just loves to show.

In the end, Postal is Boll's best film so far, but again, that isn't saying much. You still get that shallow experience feel when you're watching and see that it really was just a cheap ploy to get your money, which it actually failed to do in the end, you're risking a lot when you open the same day as Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull. It's nice though that through the whole thing you're not getting lines like:

"Why would you want to be immortal?"
"To live forever."
MAN THAT STUFF IS BAD!

Madonna directed this. Need I say more?

The "Epic Movie" filmmakers, surely had a chance to redeem themselves after there "epic" failure last year, but instead, they had just as much of an "epic flop"! I laughed maybe twice in this whole thing, that's +3 the amount of times I laughed at Epic Movie. It's a shame really, already having a worst picture contender, but leave it to these talentless filmmakers Friedberg and Aaron Selzer to screw everything up! Advice: Stay away from this film! Oh god, here comes the barf.....

I um.... you see um..... uhhhhhh.... there was a........ and uh............ I liked......... hmmmmmmmmm.......... I hated..........ummmmmmmm......... ehhhhhhhhhhhh........... I got nothing. (half a star for Justin Timberlake)

Before I go to Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer's box for a house, go all "Jack The Ripper" on them, put their heads on a spike and bring it to the town for people to laugh and throw tomatoes at, I'm going to make a list of 13 things I'd rather do than see Disaster Movie AGAIN! Going from least to greatest.

1. Calling KFED cool.
2. Admitting Miley Cyrus has talent.
3. Drinking a cup of water with paint in it.
4. Call Carrie Underwood fat and ugly.
5. Poke my eyes with acupuncture needles and scream: "I feel no pain!"
6. Sign on the "Support Uwe Boll" page.
7. Call Pauly Shore a God!
8. Claim The Love Guru is the masterpiece of our time.
9. Watch Epic Movie
10. Watch Meet the Spartans
11. Watch Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans once a day until the day I die.
12. Watch Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans two times a day until I die.
13. Die.

To all you innocent people who haven't been exposed to this form of brutality, please, take the sacrifice of my time and the pain I let in as a direction of where you should take your life. STAY AWAY FROM THIS PIECE OF SHIT! NEVER EVER EVER EVER GO NEAR IT, NOT EVEN IF YOUR FRIENDS TELL YOU TO. If they were shooting themselves would you do the same? No! Watching Disaster Movie is like putting a gun to your head with a serial killer holding the trigger. Maybe it won't hurt me, maybe "BAM!" You're dead! So STAY AWAY from this! This is not a movie, it is a death sentence that was made in two months and they only spent a minute on the substance of it all, which is none. When I saw it, inly one person in the theater was laughing and when the lights went on, I found out it was a mentally handicapped person, which the film makers believed we all were, but that seemed to backfire. And this thing makes good looking girls wrestling, extremely bad! This whole thing is the definition of bad, down to the very core. And there's no Ska-doosh from Kung Fu Panda and Beowulf rapes a guy in the nude, there's simply nothing likeable. You can't even rate this thing, because this is not a movie, it's a very cruel death sentence. KEEP AWAY! For the sake of you, and the sake of humanity.

Oh and P.S. to Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer..............


FUCK YOU!

You do not make fun of Juno or The Dark Knight!

A negative five stars or: -5/5 or 0/10 or a 0.10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Thank you for your time and sorry about the language, this movie brings the worst out of everyone and everything.

And that one half star is only there for my list.