Raging Bull (1980)

Proof that you don’t fuck with Robert De Niro!

Raging Bull stars Robert De Niro as Jake LaMotta, a middleweight boxer whose sadomasochistic rage, sexual jealousy, and animalistic appetite exceeded the boundaries of the prizefight ring, and destroyed his relationship with his wife and family. Also featured in the film are Joe Pesci as Joey, La Motta’s well intentioned brother and manager who tries to help Jake battle his inner demons, and Cathy Moriarty as his abused teen-aged wife.

So when it comes to boxing films, none can ever top my favorite, and probably everybody else’s, Rocky. That film is one of the timeless classics that the whole family can watch and recite for years and years to come. However, when watching this boxing classic take the family away.

Raging Bull is the best sports film of all-time, close to one of the greatest but you know me I can’t go that far yet. I mean there are so many reasons why it’s just great but I just don’t know how to put it all out.

This is a film that is way different from many other sports films. We never get a look at La Motta’s childhood, we just see him when he becomes a star, and then to where it starts to die out. This is great cause we get a sense that this guy was always like this and really was never happy.

The whole film is beautifully filmed in black-and-white, and to be truly honest it couldn’t have worked any other way. The fighting scenes are what is mostly perfect about the look, cause they are shot in such unrelenting and graphic detail that I really did fully get an idea of exactly what boxing is all about. This whole film looks so realistic that I actually felt like I was in the 40’s with La Motta at the time all this was going down.

One of the main reasons why this film is so great is because of De Niro. Obviously, La Motta is a real person, but De Niro takes this real person and turns into what I may say one of the best characters ever captured on film. His performance is so wonderful that at the end I totally forgot that this was De Niro, and felt like I was just watching La Motta himself. His temper is short and there are plenty of scenes where he just loses it, and you, the viewer, are even scared just watching this man. But one of the better reasons why he is so great, is cause the character himself is so unsympathetic. Now this is what I love to see in movies that is played real well here. Here we have a guy who just doesn’t give a shit about what he does: he cheats on his wife plenty of times, beats the crap out of anyone he wants to, basically just doesn’t care what other people have to say about him cause he knows they will get destroyed by him, and at the end of the day he will say “FUCK YOU!”. This is the kind of character that I want to see in any film, De Niro plays this character with such anger and aggression, that I’m not just scared of this man, but I also have to just say he is one of the greatest tragic hero’s in any film still to this day. Also, the supporting cast with Joe Pesci and Cathy Moriarty who do their very best jobs just to at least handle this crazy S.O.B.

But surely this film wouldn’t even be amazing without one of the greatest, Martin Scorsese. You can just tell with every single scene he is just swinging for the bleachers and is trying so hard to make this film as effective as still is today. He shows us the little spaces in between the high points, but mostly its a film about a life and the end of it, and what is left to say. I was just right away destroyed by the film even as it started, with those beautiful and glorious opening credits, don’t tell me that doesn’t just deserve a 10/10 itself. Honestly, I will never watch another Scorsese film without thinking of this and to be truly honest, nothing that he does in the future will ever, and I mean ever come close to this beautiful piece of work.

Consensus: Without a doubt one of Scorsese’s best films of all-time, that shows a life that is filled with violence and anger, that is often too hard to watch. De Niro plays his greatest role ever as La Motta the unsympathetic hero, and puts so much depth into this performance, that I really felt like I knew who this man truly was.

10/10=Full Priceee!!!!

To Die For (1995)

Usually I don’t like Gus Van Sant, but he is starting to grow on me.

Suzanne Stone (Nicole Kidman) has always harbored one dream: being on TV. She’s dead-set on making that dream come true, but there’s one hitch: her husband (Matt Dillon), who just wants her to stay at home. So, Suzanne puts in motion a plan to get him out of the way — for good. Joaquin Phoenix co-stars as the love-struck teenager Suzanne recruits to help execute her sinister plot — and her spouse.

So needless to say, this is probably one of the best Dark comedies ever made. It really does have every element that is so bleak and upsetting, and is then shadowed away with this great element of comedy.

But the film isn’t as much as a dark comedy as it is a satire on how people can get so overcome with this emotion of being famous and gaining stardom, that we almost forget what are real lives are all about. It is so dark and so satirical, that at points it comes out being so mean, and this is a good thing.

The screenplay written by Buck Henry really does contain some of the funniest but also terribly true pop culture references. Its writing is so intentionally funny that at points I couldn’t help but just to laugh at the jokes, that I totally forgot how dark this material really was after all.

Director Gus Van Sant uses a clever method of working backwards: The key characters in the story are interviewed, following a shocking local event, with flashbacks of the incidents as the interviewee’s recall them. At first I thought this technique was distracting, but I soon embraced it. He honestly cannot stop but make one terrific visual after another, with sometimes colors so bright they are actually scary, as scary as Suzanne the main character.

The film had a bit of problems with what it wanted to be though. It looked like it was going to act as dark comedy, media satire or clear-cut thriller. I didn’t know what its intentions were to be which is why I kind of had a hard time understanding what to expect.

Nicole Kidman knocks this performance right out of the park. She is sexy, scary, aggressive, and so devious, but you can’t but to just love this character that she does. This is her best performance of all-time and I was actually shocked by how good she really was. The supporting cast is good as well most notably Joaquin Phoenix, who is so young but still so great as a this young kid still being taken advantage of. The only problem I had with this film was that I wanted to see a bit more of how Matt Dillon acted and how he and his wife did interact with each other, we never really got that other than just a couple of scenes.

Consensus: To Die For is darkly hilarious and satirically-true, and is backed with an amazing performance from Kidman, which ends in being one of Van Sant’s best.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Return to Me (2000)

Oh how love is so beautiful.

A building contractor (David Duchovny) donates his wife’s heart after she’s tragically killed in an accident. A year later, he falls in love with a plucky waitress (Minnie Driver), only to discover she had received a heart transplant at the same time and place. Directed by Bonnie Hunt, this charming romantic comedy about second chances at love – and life.

This film is so resolute old-fashioned and sweet, that I felt like I was going to completely hate every single part of this film. However, that was not the case.

The film is not so funny as it is quite charming and cute. There are little parts in the film that will make you laugh but they are never over-zealous or annoying, there more cute and harmful.

Now with a story like this you kind of just have to go along with it, and forget all teh corny stuff. I found it really crazy since she is trying to hide the scar she has, that they have never slept together after have been going out for months. As I said this film is very harmful, but this is just too sweet to be true.

It incorporates several good laughs and it is not too much of a chick film. It has a lot of good “guy” material. This balance is not easily installed into the first draft of a script, nor are the charming nuances of affection between characters, nor is it easy to make a family style film with a variety of generations so comfortably represented in a cohesive romantic dramedy.

The one thing that makes this film work for me is its genuine chemistry between Duchovny and Driver. Driver in particular, gives a performance that supplies a dimension more deeper than the material suggests. I really felt how vulnerable she really is throughout the film.

But the best thing about the film is that it doesn’t just focus on these two, but also on all the other couples that surround them. Like James Belushi and his wife Bonnie Hunt kept me laughing. And also, the little group of old guys with Robert Loggia and Carroll O’Connor, they all provide good laughs and make some of the dry spots funny.

Consensus: Return to Me is heavily-cliched and not very funny at some parts, but features a genuine chemistry between Duchovny and Driver, and just a sweet and lovely outlook on love.

5.5/10=Rental!!!

Cruising (1980)

I don’t think that Pacino can pull off the gay guy as well as we all thought.

After a serial killer brutally murders several gay men in New York’s S&M and leather districts, cop Steve Burns (Al Pacino) goes undercover on the streets, where he must learn the complex rules of the underground gay subculture if he’s to catch the psycho.

Let’s just say this has a lot of gay people, and a lot of gay things going on. After awhile me and my buddies just couldn’t watch it anymore.

There was probably about 40 minutes of just showing all these men with each other and having sex, it was dirty and we just stopped watching it.

After you watch this movie find a chick and talk to her, trust me your going to need it.

The only good thing that I can remember from this movie is that Al Pacino is the man, so end of story.

1/10=SomeOleBullShiitt!!!

Clara’s Heart (1988)

HAhahahahhahaha, Neil Patrick Harris!!!

While vacationing in Jamaica to get over her baby daughter’s death, Leona Hart (Kathleen Quinlan) strikes up a friendship with perceptive maid Clara Mayfield (Whoopi Goldberg). Soon, she transfers her place of employment to Leona’s Maryland home and becomes a surrogate mother to the Harts’ impressionable son (Neil Patrick Harris) — a bond that will be tested when the secrets of Clara’s past are exposed.

This is one of those little heartfelt films about how a boy that can’t find any love in the world finds it with the most random person ever. This just so happens to be between a young spoiled child, and a Jamacian, heavy-faithed woman.

So the cliches fly out of everywhere. I felt like if this film went many different ways with its story instead of the usual and obvious route it would have been a lot better and more inspiring.

Another problem I had with this film was that the two parents in this film were so nasty and cruel, that they didn’t even seem belivable. I mean no matter how bad divorces can be, never ever do they just single handedly just forget about the kid and let that kid stay with the house keeper, well not any parents that I know would do that.

The one saving point of this film is the two main performances from Goldberg and Neil Patrick Harris. Goldberg gives a very fine and strong performance as a woman who doesn’t take anything from no one, and you sense much knowledge as she underplays many times throughout the whole story. Neil Patrick Harris, does an OK job for a young child actor, as in the end you actually do feel that this kid moves full-circle.

However, there is a little subplot that just really annoyed me about Clara’s little secret. It was kept throughout the whole movie and when it is finally revealed its revealed an hour too late, and never really gives a meaning of why Clara acts the way she does.

I think the message was good, about how you should grow up and always do the best to your ability, I just don’t think it came out at all that well by the end of the film.

Consensus: Though it has good performances from the leads, Clara’s Heart is predictable, slow, and at times not very belivable as to why these people act the way they do.

2.5/10=SomeOleBullShiitt!!!!!

Following (1998)

This is why stalking is badd!!!!

Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Dark Knight) writes and directs this odd, claustrophobic neo-noir film about a seedy young Brit (Jeremy Theobald) who’s obsessed with following people — albeit harmlessly at first. After meeting a like-minded bloke (Alex Haw), the twosome graduate to breaking and entering — but meet their match in a tough blonde dame (Lucy Russell) who may have dubious plans of her own.

This is Nolan’s directorial debut, and basically he uses in this film what he has always used, and that is the non-linear plot structure. This is a device that he would later use in films Memento, and Batman Begins.

I think that this device is really used well here cause it reflects the uncerntainty I had about these characters and if they were good, and if they were bad. Random scenes pop up out of nowhere at some points, and you don’t know where they came from, but as the film goes on you see how each and every scene all come together at the end.

However, I think that this film was in ways a lot like Memento. Overall I thought Memento was more polished and seemed better thought out than Following, Christopher Nolan even said that he thought Following was flawed and Memento was the far superior film.

Also, by the end of the film I never really understood what this blonde dame did with her life and how she came into the story to begin with. Yeah, we know she’s being framed, but for what, and why? All so many confusing questions that I feel were never answered.

The acting from this unknown cast is actually quite good. The best out of the cast I think was Alex Haw, who played Bloke. He starts out as a very cool and mellow guy with a set of plans on how to rob, but then by the end he totally changes into a new and mean person. His transition really works out well, and by the end of the film I hated him more than I actually liked him in the beginning.

Consensus: Nolan’s debut isn’t perfect and a bit flawed, but has a great way of story-telling, and some fine performances for this low-budget noir.

7/10=Rental!!!

Sex Drive (2008)

Watched this movie with 3 of my pals, and let me just say that is what I call a good time!!!

Determined to lose his virginity, 18-year-old Ian (Josh Zuckerman) grabs two pals (Clark Duke and Amanda Crew) and drives from Chicago to Knoxville, Tenn., to meet Danielle (Katrina Bowden), the girl of his dreams … or at least that’s what she seems like on Facebook. Sweetening the deal is the fact that she’s offered to go “all the way,” as long as he can make it all the way to see her, of course. Seth Green and James Marsden co-star.

This is one of the overly-sexed up raunchy teen comedies like Harold & Kumar, and Superbad. And I think it’s safe to say to put this one in that same category as those two greats as well.

The one thing I didn’t like about the film was that it didn’t have the heart like those other two did. The characterization of our main character isn’t that well put out, and you sort of just walk into this character as a horny, geeky, 18 year-old. Also, his pal Lenny bones chicks left and right and it takes about the 100th one to know that’s not how you act, especially with chicks most of the time.

I can see why so many people thought it was so bad, but really I wasn’t expecting anything else other than a raunchy, sexed up, teen road trip comedy. I watched the trailer right before and I knew what I was getting myself into, so I accepted it for what it was, and I actually enjoyed a lot more cause of my acceptance.

There are a lot of things that happen in this movie that are hilarious, although some are better than others but really who cares. The gags were funny and a lot of the things that these characters said were perverted, but really funny and I will probably catch myself in the near-future using one their catchy lines.

The first three acts are very very cliched and predictable. And basically the film can be very predictable but it is really funny when the moments actually happen. As me and my buddies were watching this we were always guessing what came next and I’m not going to lie 90% of the time we were right, but we still had a lot of fun laughing and predicting.

Probably the best thing about this film is that it actually does feature a good cast. This new kid, Josh Zuckerman plays the geeky and nerdy Micheal Cera that we all know and love, but he doesn’t over-do the awkwardness and actually seems a bit believable. The best are the little side characters such. James Marsden plays this very uncharacteristic jock who is such an ass, but is so funny at the same time, and after watching this I can almost forget that he was ever in Enchanted. Seth Green probably has the greatest cameo of all in this movie as the free-spirited Amish man, who is so cool and funny that I wanted more of him, but really just didn’t get enough. And another problem I had with this film was that it didn’t feature enough cameos to keep the story fresh and exciting, cause I always wanted to see someone new but never got that.

Really this film is meant for a bunch of dudes to watch. There are boobs flying everywhere, and really if any dude that hasn’t enough a good firm laugh in a long time for about a week, this will probably cure you have that problem.

Consensus: Though a bit predictable and less heart-felt as other films of this nature, Sex Drive is a hilarious, and fun take on the raunchy teen-comedy genre, and actually does feature some great stuff but some are just better than others.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Oh God! (1977)

When I think of what God looks like, I know I don’t think about George Burns.

Buttonholing venerable comedian George Burns for the title role was certainly a divine inspiration! God, in the guise of a wisecracking old gent, decides to makes his presence known to a harried grocery clerk (John Denver) so he can get the message out that “everything on earth can still work if we want it to.”

Going into this film I was expecting to hear a bunch of little rants about religion and how God isn’t real and how he is. Well I didn’t get that, and instead what I got was a very true, if not careful look at the world of religion.

There are plenty of one-liners that make this film very funny. By the end you have this feeling that God isn’t just a funny guy, but probably a really chill guy that you wouldn’t mind hanging out with. The film is directed by Carl Reiner, who instead of making this film very silly and dumb, he brings up this smart and quietly funny story, that all of us can connect to.

But what i really found interesting and it is still so true today, even more so, that even when we do see miracles in our lives right in front of us we still tend to ignore then and credit it to something else. This movie does carry a timeless message that WE are creating our life, that we all have a choice to live a certain way and that everything that is happening in our world is created by us and actually is a reflection by us. But again, it is all our choice to believe it or not. And the only things that we complain about, is truly and simply about ourselves and nothing else.

However, although the humor was there at points it really wasn’t in the film all the way through. For some of these parts I was bored and uninterested until God came back on the screen and made everything funny. Also, this film really doesn’t get strong and effective until the very last 20 minutes. I feel like with a strong message that I basically just stated above, this film could have benefited from that throughout the whole film, but instead choose to use it at the end of the film.

I really did like George Burns as God however. He doesn’t play this stereotypical image we have of God instead he just plays himself, and makes the film a whole lot more funnier with this representation. Surprisingly, John Denver does a better job than I expected. He doesn’t seem too cheesy and more believable as an actor than a country artist. If only he didn’t die too young, or else he could have been in better films. Some guys just don’t have all the luck.

Consensus: Oh God! is good but not terrific. It features a heart-felt message, with good acting, and a smart script, its just that its message wasn’t as effective until the very end of the film.

8/10=Matineee!!!!

Shadowboxer (2006)

In order to get ready for Precious, I chose another Lee Daniels film, that I’m hoping will make Precious a better trip than what I expect.

A nasty crime lord (Stephen Dorff) hires Rose (Helen Mirren) and her stepson Mikey (Cuba Gooding Jr.) — assassin partners and longtime lovers — to off his spouse, Vickie (Vanessa Ferlito). But Rose, ill with cancer and on her last job, spares her mark when she learns Vickie’s with child. The unexpected twist forces Mikey, Rose and their charges to flee to life in suburbia, until the past catches up with them.

Now looking at this film from a person who has seen it all in films, I have got to say this movie is pretty messed up. When you have film with Helen Mirren and Cuba Gooding Jr. doing it, you know you have a pretty messed up film.

So anyway, all the critics I have read, all HATED this film. For me I’m going to say yeah its odd and kind of weird but really it does a good job with its material. It takes this unusual story and makes it a stylized, enjoyable thriller.I’m not going to lie there are scenes that get a little too out of hand, but after that I still was on the edge of my seat wondering what was to happen next.

I am not a prude and I can see how the sex scenes bring a grittiness that was needed to show the harshness of real life but nothing else about this movie reflects real life. The director almost comically twists the relationships to get a jolt out of the viewer.

Helen Mirren doesn’t quite act to the standard she could have. She looks like at times she just lost a bet, and was given a script to work with and just decided to mildly act it out. Cuba Gooding Jr. does the best job in this film as basically taking the last act of the film and making it his show with a powerful performance. Stephen Dorff, plays the type of 2nd grade villain that doesn’t get enough screen time to show how vicious he really can be, I think this was a problem but he could have done better as well.

The one thing I’ll also say about this film is that it shows these weird couples, but you know what that’s reality. I mean there is a couple of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Mo’Nique, this was kind of odd, but it still showed how strange couples can actually be.

Consensus: The over-the-top sex scenes and at points very random, Shadowboxer is a stylized and entertaining little thriller, that doesn’t get the best boot from its cast, but in the end is actually OK.

5/10=Rentall!!!!!

Barton Fink (1991)

Holy shit man. That was my reaction after seeing this movie. Damn this was a darkass movie but shit, who am I kidding, it’s a Coen Brothers movie. Duh!

Idealistic playwright Barton Fink (John Turturro) believes writing should reveal the hopes, dreams and tragedies of the common man. When Hollywood taps him to write a movie, Fink develops severe writer’s block and soon falls victim to a strange sequence of events. Unable to combine his deep-seated ethics with Tinseltown’s frivolity, the disillusioned and desperate Fink winds up involved in a murder investigation.

The Coen Bros. know how to tell a story and as in life, stories are not all pretty and happy. All of their movies are basically all different genres rolled into one film but this one is the strangest of all: it combines film noir, really dark comedy, and a little bit of horror. This is probably one of the strangest films about Hollywood that I’ve ever seen, and mostly all films about Hollywood are strange.

The film is basically taken inside the mind of Barton Fink and you see everything and how it is for him. He gains writer’s block and that’s when things start to gay hay-wire. I liked how it was stylized with symbolism that I usually didn’t get, but I think that the Coens could have made it a little more clearer. I found myself fighting what was real and what was fiction, rather than actually watching the movie and understanding the hidden messages.

But the problem is that as the film gets stranger and stranger, I started to get more and more confused with the movie itself. There have been plenty of films with how Hollywood looks, but this is one of how it is a state of mind. The movie tries to be more mysterious than actually making sense, and although most of its main messages are brought up, I think the central message of Hollywood itself wasn’t brought up so well.

Despite the confusion, The Coen Brothers are what makes this film its best. They use lighting and a gritty setting to create the mood for the film, even without really getting deeper into the plot. I liked this and I did feel like I was some place that wasn’t safe and very psychological. It looks like it was literally filmed in the 40s, with some areas of the world and how beautifully real they actually look.

Now this cast is what will surely blow you away. John Tuturro probably plays one of his greatest roles yet as a struggling writer who gains writer’s block and just cannot get out of it, he fully captures this man and becomes enraveled in Barton Fink. The best out of the whole supporting cast is definetly John Goodman. At first he plays this lovable, sweet, kind-hearted guy that really does bring some heart to the film, but by the end that all changes and he shows that magnificentially.

One last thing about this film is that almost every minute you just have got to watch for the symbolism, cause by the end your going start wondering what was ever solved in the first place.

Consensus: Barton Fink is a very confusing and strange piece of work from The Coens, but features effective mood changes with some beautiful set designs, and two amazing lead performances from Goodman and Tuturro.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Bulletproof (1996)

I could not have imagined these two as once being the best of friends.

In this buddy crime comedy, hard feelings must be set aside when undercover cop Rock Keats (Damon Wayans) is first shot by small-time crook Archie Moses (Adam Sandler), then forced to team up with the bungling oaf when both men are targeted by crime boss Frank Colton (James Caan). Upon Rock’s release from the hospital, he finds out that Colton’s hit men are after him and Archie. High jinks ensue when the dueling duo run from the baddies.

First of all this film’s premise is the same exact premise that I have seen over and over again. Two buddies pull crimes together and one’s actually a cop, oh what a time of inventiveness!

The whole film is not about this over-used premise though, it’s just basically a story that jokes can work out of. The jokes that happen in this movie are rarely ever funny, and are just put in to show if Sandler and Wayans can actually make a good comedy with just their own ad-libbing. However, it fails, with way too many sex and fart jokes this film started to really become an annoyance for me.

The one big problem with this film is that it’s leading actors are very funny in a lot of other material, but in this they don’t show one bit of good chemistry. I didn’t feel like these guys we’re ever once friends in their life. Sandler is funny in this at times, and I found him to be a lot better than Wayans, but really if you think about it Sandler isn’t that much of hard ass to be a drug dealing criminal.

There is one part that I actually thought was fresh when in the beginning of the film I think I saw Wayans accidentally slip up, and how they left it in there. This felt fresh and I wish there was more of this freshness to this film, but every time it get’s knocked back down with lame jokes and even lamer action.

There is one part that I really felt was great and showed how much of a superstar Sandler really is. But I can’t speak about it anymore and let me just show you:

Consensus: Bulletproof features some good stuff from Sandler, but is weighed down by a horrible script, bad chemistry, and an even worse premise.

2/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!!!

Match Point (2005)

Its official, Woody Allen can do no wrong!!!

Tennis pro Chris (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) gets mixed up with the darker side of high society in this suspenseful drama with a Hitchcockian flair from writer-director Woody Allen, who sets the action across the pond from his beloved New York City. Chris is befriended by a wealthy family and falls for femme fatale Nola (Scarlett Johansson). But a clandestine affair involving another woman leaves Chris wondering if murder is the only way out.

Now this film for me raises about two big questions: 1. Does Woody Allen have anything left to say?, and 2. Does Scarlett Johansson have the acting chops to pull off all the roles she’s been getting.

The answer to the first question is a resounding yes. For people that don’t like Woody Allen films well then you may just want to check this out. It is nothing like any of his other usual witty romantic comedies. Match Point is romantic, very dramatic, and by the end turns into a type of psychological thriller.

One thing I really loved about this film was that it’s main message about luck and its effect is shown incredibly well throughout the movie. The opening image stays with you during the film, and is shown again once more and even more touching and meaningful.

The amazing story about infidelity and being caught up in lust really does keep you interested in this film. It is played out so well, as they show you how this one man interacts with both of these women on a daily basis and not once does one story become more interesting than the other. Every moment that happens in this film just keeps you more and more glued to the screen where you are ultimately in love with this story.

Now to answer the second question that is also a resounding yes. Johansson does a great job as well as playing this chick who at first plays hard to get then by the end of the film she starts to really turn out to be one of these crazy obsessed chicks that your just afraid of seeing. Also, Rhys-Meyers basically does an even better job, but the only problem I had with him was that I just felt he was a little too gay looking. I mean check out pitcures of him, he doesn’t look like the kind of guy that would be banging Johansson on the side. But hey that’s just me.

The ending to this film is ultimately effective and it feels very true. This story couldn’t have ended any other way other than the way it did. One of the more effective films I have seen ever from Allen, and overall probably ever.

Consensus: Match Point is one of Woody Allen’s best that features great writing, a compelling story that teaches us the lessons about class and infidelity.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!

Vantage Point (2008)

Does it actually take 8 different point of views to see who assassinated the president?

Moments after he arrives in Spain for a landmark anti terrorism summit, U.S. President Ashton is shot. The 15 minutes leading up to the shooting are rehashed — Rashomon-style — from the perspective of various onlookers: two Secret Service agents (Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox), a TV reporter (Sigourney Weaver) and a tourist (Forest Whitaker).

I’m not going to lie but the premise is actually quite intriguing. I was looking forward to actually seeing this movie, but it collapsed into car crashes, shoot-outs, and utterly implausible plot developments.

The one thing I liked about the film was its style. It revealed something new at just about every vantage point, and sometimes things we didn’t understand the first time, we understand somehow later on.

Then, after awhile the flashbacks really start to be annoying. I felt like I was watching Groundhog Day by the 5th flashback, cause to be truly honest, this film has way too much plot and not enough action to let us have fun with. Instead we always have to think about whats going on at that exact moment.

The one big twist to the whole film is that the president that gets shot isn’t really the real president. Yes, it’s one of those dumb look alike twists. I found this completely stupid and just put in to give William Hurt some lines to work with. Also, the cliches come out almost every step of the way. You have lines like “but you gave me your word”, and I’m thinking how could they give you their word, their terrorists!!!

The cast is well-picked but not the best acted. William Hurt does an OK job as the president, Forrest Whittaker probably gives the best performance as a lovable camera man. Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox probably play some of the dumbest security guards ever who ditch out lines so bad that I won’t even try to restate them.

Consensus: Though with an intriguing premise, Vantage Point turns into a loud, dumb, and stiffly acted gimmick of a film.

3/10=SomeOleBullShittt!!!!!!!

Six Degrees Of Separation (1993)

If only it was six degrees of Kevin Bacon, then this would have been a 10/10!

Paul (Will Smith) is a charming and engaging young con artist who appears one day on the doorstep of Flan and Ouisa Kittredge (Donald Sutherland and Stockard Channing). Professing to be a friend of the affluent couple’s son, Paul spins a tale of celebrity and despair that deeply affects the pair and their socialite friends.

This film is based on the stage play by John Guare, which actually was inspired by a true story itself. Now I know the original story, and I was not very disapointed with this adaptation one bit.

The one thing about this film that planned out really well was how it was told. Most of it through flashbacks and narration from families who experienced Paul the con artist. They narrate and show you how each and every little situation all relate to each other, and I never lost track of what happened.

I just felt like the film didn’t quite have as much humanity to it as the film tried to bring up. These characters didn’t seem so real in their actions and by the way they talked. We also never really got to know them real well, other than their just a rich couple, and are having problems with their children.

I also didn’t like how the con artist was reflected in a very negative light. Though he was doing crimes, I’ll say that, but he was the one who brought these people to realize who they were and he was like the patron for having them realize it. All the rich people were made to look all glamorous with the occasional problems, while Smith was looked at as just a perv among society.

The film is uptight and the dialogue is often delivered with the flare of an old classic. The lines are witty, sharp, delightful and the gay stuff is fake near laughable. I enjoyed how the film did a real great job at combining comedy with drama, and making the film a lot more compelling than what it seemed to be.

Stockard Channing naturally holds the film in place but her screen presence is so big and the camera is so small. Channing has to keep moving in order to stay in the film. However, by the middle of the film you begin to feel Channing’s break away from the theater and she delivers her lines with the grace of a Hollywood star. But, Will Smith probably has one of the greatest performances of his career in this film. It must have been hard for him to play a gay man, but he was so believable and genuine in it, that I almost forgot this was Will Smith I was talking about.

Consensus: A funny and moving drama with some great satirical messages about society, Six Degrees Of Seperation is moving but doesn’t feel too humane.

9/10=Full Pricee!!

Pieces of April (2003)

What a great Thanksgiving!!!!

Reformed wild child April Burns (Katie Holmes) attempts to make Thanksgiving dinner — while battling a temperamental oven — for her estranged suburban family at her grungy New York apartment and anticipates introducing them to her new boyfriend, Bobby (Derek Luke). Oliver Platt, Sean Hayes and Oscar-nominated Patricia Clarkson co-star in this drama that observes a dysfunctional family coming together to address the past and heal the future.

Shot in less than two weeks for less than $300,000, Pieces of April was written and directed by Peter Hedges, who adapted his novel Whats Eating Gilbert Grape.

With that film and this, Hedges shows that he can write a pretty decent script even with familiar source material. He happens to have this screenplay that is not only very comedic but also quite dark in its approach.

Though I did like this film I did have a little bit of complaints. The gritty look started to annoy me as I felt that it just looked way too dirty and cheaply made. There was also this little sub-plot that is really mysterious, only cause the film has it that way. Derek Luke is out doing something, and I kind of never understood what it really was.

All these flaws are quickly excused when the performances come out of these stars. Katie Holmes is actually pretty good in this film and gives charming performance as the leading woman, but the one that really knocks it out of the park here is Patricia Clarkson. She gives an amazing performance as an old and dying woman here is funny but also very tragic. You can see that she misses the times that she missed out on with her daughter, and she is upset about that but also still trying to keep her strength as an old woman. She was by far the best out of the whole cast.

The ending is probably one of the more touching and sincere endings I have ever seen. It really did feel genuine and the whole film basically lead up to this point and doesn’t leave us hanging out.

Consensus: Despite its flaws, Pieces Of April is a sincere, touching, and darkly comedic touch on familiar source material, that features an amazing performance from Patricia Clarkson.

8/10=Matinee!!!!

Funny People (2009)

The one time that Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler, actually aren’t funny.

Famous and wealthy funnyman George Simmons (Adam Sandler) doesn’t give much thought to how he treats people until a doctor (Torsten Voges) delivers stunning health news, forcing George to reevaluate his priorities with a little help from aspiring stand-up comic Ira (Seth Rogen). Judd Apatow (Knocked Up) writes and directs this moving comedy that also stars Leslie Mann, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman and Aubrey Plaza.

Funny People is a movie that I’ve wanted to see for a very long time now. I love Sandler, Rogen, and most of all Judd Apatow. And when I heard they we’re all goin to be in the same film together I could not believe myself. Finally I got the DVD and watched it and I’m quite glad.

This is Apatow’s third written & directed film, and in his last two showings (Knocked Up, The 40 Year-Old Virgin), he showed a great way of blending hilarious comedy with some moving drama. However, in this film he doesn’t show his best directing abilities. I felt like he was being more serious with this film, as this is probably one of his more serious and mature pieces of work cause it is about dieing. I just didn’t feel like this film hit every single point it could have. Apatow over-uses the slow-motion zoom in to show his characters being emotionally effected by something, and it really starts to become a little too obvious.

Still, his humor does hit the mark. I felt like there were a little bit too much of those jokes about boners and such, but really I wasn’t expecting much different. The humor blends in really well, where at points in the film they are actually making little jokes about death, and it lightens up the mood.

Apatow also does a great job of blending in fiction with non-fiction to evoke compelling realistic performances from the cast. I think this is a role of a lifetime for Sandler, because the character he plays is a goofy comedian he gets to indulge in the zany side of his comedy, but also he gets to play the characters darker parts and he does a fantastic job at it. Seth Rogen is really great in this film as he isn’t playing the usual Seth Rogen you see in every other film, he is actually more serious and believable as a very awkward and nerdy geek who is just trying to be funny. Surprisingly, the funniest out of this whole cast has got to be Eric Bana. Yes, out of a cast filled with Jonah Hill, Adam Sandler, and Seth Rogen The Hulk ends up becoming the funniest guy. He comes late in  the film but plays this stereotypical macho-man guy and really gives this film the extra laughs it deserves.

There are two films in Funny People, one about Sandler and Rogen, and the other about Sandler and Leslie Mann. It’s less of a buy one get one free deal, as much as it is a buy one and get one you really didn’t ask for. The latter part didn’t feel like it was supposed to be put in the film, and just added on to less comedy and more drama.

Consensus: Funny People is not Apatow’s best, but still has a great blending of comedy and drama, with some realistic performances. I just felt like this was two movies rolled into one, and lack of cohesiveness between the two separate stories is what stops it from being a great movie.

8/10=Matinee!!!!!

Con Air (1997)

Nic Cage takes a ride with a bunch of convicts featuring Dave Chapelle, yeah this is a movie.

When the government puts all its rotten criminal eggs in one airborne basket, it’s asking for trouble. Before you can say, “Pass the barf bag,” the crooks control the plane, led by creepy Cyrus “The Virus” Grissom (John Malkovich). Watching his every move is the just-released Nicolas Cage, who’d rather reunite with his family. John Cusack plays the creator of the plane and stands by as his whole dream turns into a nightmare.

Con Air combines elements from many other films such as Airplane!, The Rock, The Dirty Dozen, and a little bit of Silence Of The Lambs. Now all of this may seem like a weird combination for a film, but it turns out to be one of my favorite action films of all-time.

First of all, the great thing about Con Air is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Scott Rosenberg’s ultra macho script knows it is having a lot of fun with the writing, and it brings in a lot of good laughs. The tongue-in-cheek approach that this film had never really dies out, cause although some of the lines may be cheesy, they are still hilarious and well worth it.

The action that takes place in this film isn’t so bad either. I liked how it was fun but it wasn’t non stop to the point of where there’s no room for a story to take place. The things that happen in this film seem very believable and the action is never too dumb to where its unbelievable.

The only problem I really had with this film was that it was working out really well by the end, and it loses itself in a routine explosive third act. Yeas, it was very good and fun to look at, but it just didn’t seem like it was needed for this film. I liked how the action took place in that scene, but when it was all said and done I felt like everything else sort of was lost cause of it.

The acting in this film is pretty good but mostly from Malkovich. He plays this slick, witty, and actually pretty smart villain that you want to hate cause he’s so crazy, but you can’t help but to love cause of his amazing apporach to the lines and the events that happen. Cage, I thought could have done a lot better, but his accent by the end just got really annoying for me, and by the end I just couldn’t stand it. Steve Buscemi plays a little side character in this film that is really funny, and by the end of the film, he turns out to be the most-liked character from the whole film.

Consensus: Con Air is full of energy and humor, that is fun to be a part of and does hit the right spots every time throughout the movie. Though the ending was a little bit out of hand, the film still holds a great place in my heart.

9/10=Full Priccee!!!

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

This King really does know how to mack back in the 16th-century.

Director Justin Chadwick’s opulent historical drama stars Natalie Portman as Anne Boleyn and Scarlett Johansson as her sister, Mary — both beautiful, ambitious and vying for the heart of powerful but intemperate King Henry VIII (Eric Bana). Though both women are the monarch’s mistresses, only one can become his queen consort — but at what cost?

Remember when you were taught in history class about that guy Henry VIII, and he was ginat, and fat and there was that little picture of him eating the chicken? Well that guy is played by Eric Bana, who does not match any of those characteristics at all. That’s basically all your going to get in this movie.

Now I’m no historical major, but I know a little thing or to about the 16th-century and what events took place. This film basically makes all those factual happenings and romanticize them into something totally unbelievable. Throughout the film I wondered if, if the King is so busy with these two women, who’s controlling what happens with England.

The film felt more of a soap opera than a film. There were moments that just made me want to puke by how overly romantic it was trying to be. And other than this I just felt bored all the way through. Like honestly nothing exciting really happens until the first hour is up and then the real story develops. I zoned out a whole bunch of times even when the stroy came on, and as a whole found this not so interesting.

I also think that this film could’ve really pushed the boundaries a lot more. It was PG-13 and it felt so drawn back by this, that it made its love scenes less romantic cause they were afraid of showing some boobies. Now, I’m not trying to sound perverted or anything, but when you have two beautiful women such as Johansson and Portman, you would expect to see some bodies go around but nothing quite happens in order to get its appeal going.

I liked the set pieces and found this to be very good to look and gaze at. The scenery made me feel placed in this era, and I really did feel in this time-period as this was happening.

Natalie Portman is what really makes this film. Her performance is so good and rich that I actually did believe her as this totally bitchy sister that all she wanted was the fame and fortune as Queen. Bana is misscast and I didn’t find him to be very engaging as a King, and this is what basically threw me off from his character.

Consensus: Portman’s great performance and beautiful set desings, aren’t enough to save The Other Boleyn Girl from a boring story that just felt like a 1 hour and 55 minute soap opera.

3/10=SomeOleBullShiittt!!!!

Marvin’s Room (1996)

Leonardo DiCaprio can honestly be one annoying little shit!!!

The tables are turned when straight-laced Bessie (Diane Keaton) — who devotes her life to caring for her chronically ill father (Hume Cronyn) — must ask her estranged, bohemian sibling (Meryl Streep) for help after Bessie suffers a health catastrophe.

Never in my life have I seen a more touching and delicate little film about the biggest thing in life, dieing. Throughout the film I couldn’t help but be reminded of the 1993 film What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, also with Leo. Both have the same themes of love, but that one was so much better than this.

Marvin’s Room has some little nice touches of humor and drama. The scenes of humor all come from Robert De Niro and Dan Hedaya as the brother combination in the doctor’s office. I thought some of these scenes we’re funny, but after awhile they just started to get too repetitive and way too lame. I think they were trying a little way too hard on making this a light-hearted drama with comedy that would stick, but in all honesty it didn’t really quite work.

The main problem I had with this film was how annoying Leo was in this film. Honestly, I love Leo and all the films he does but in this one he really is one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen in a film. He whines and complains so many times throughout the whole film, and I really have no clue why nobody did anything and slap his ass up. If that was my kid he would be so blue, people would think he was a cut-scene from the Smurfs. He acts very bi-polar during the whole film, but it tries to act like that we don’t even suspect and just tries to cover it up with a little message of a lost father.

I liked the story between the two sisters (Keaton and Streep), I thought that this was the main strong point of the film and really did add a lot more emotional depth to the story. I realized how much these two missed out on, and you can tell by the way they speak with one another that they really do miss what they both could have had as sisters.

Keaton does the best job out of this whole cast and really shines. She adds a lot more depth, and makes this one-dimensional character very bold and likable, and mostly a person that we all cheer for and love. Meryl Streep does well also, but I don’t think she quite gave it her all in this film, and really did shine away with what could have been a really good chemistry on screen.

C0nsensus: Marvin’s Room tries to be funnier than it actually is, but is a touching if at times stiff, look at the fate and reality of death.

6.5/10=Rentall!!!!

The Doors (1991)

Wow, Jim Morrison was kind of an ass now that I think about it.

This drama is as much about 1960s music culture as it is about legendary outlaw Jim Morrison (Val Kilmer), one of the most influential figures in the history of rock and roll. This electrifying drama chronicles Morrison’s rise from obscurity to the pinnacle of the rock and roll music world as lead singer for The Doors, and, finally, to his tragically early death in a Paris bathtub.

Personally, I love The Doors. I like a lot of their music and thinks its so strange and out there that it really is some of the best. I think Jim Morrison was a great artist when he was alive, he wrote some strange but really beautiful poetry and music. And, I also love Oliver Stone, as much of you already know. Why didn’t this whole film work out like I wanted it to??

To start it off let me look at the positives. The concert scenes are filmed in large screen, cause that’s how Stone wants you to see them as and really there was no other way they could have been shown other than in wide screen presentation. It is amazing how the concert scenes are re-created, as they look like outtakes taken from a documentary at the time. The crowd scenes have a real distinct powerful effect, and this is one of the most realistic looking rock movies I’ve seen in a long time.

Val Kilmer looks so much like Morrison it’s actually scary. But not only does he look like him, Kilmer captures the total essence that Morrison had. He was a strange man, who’s erratic behavior got worse as he started to deal more into drugs, as this film shows very well. Meg Ryan also has a good performance as his long-time girlfriend who goes through some changes herself, and through Ryan’s performance we see this very well.

However, there were many problems I had with this film that did bother me a lot. The historical innacuracies really do start to get out of hand very early in this film. The film shows Morrison holding his crotch and mocking the TV as he says “higher” on live television. Now in real life, Morrison just sayed “higher” by accident and didn’t really know what he was doing when he did it. Also, the film does a great job at showing us the drug addicted, sex making, drunken Jim Morrison, and never really shows us anything good about him. The film dives into his personal life of booze, sex, and drugs, and totally forgets about his work at hand and how his songs came to be.

I did like Stone’s direction as I felt it was very inspired but I felt he could have really changed the last hour or so. The typical rise-and-fall story of Morrison is falling right at about when the first hour is up. The after that the whole film basically becomes a total downer for anyone who loved the band The Doors, such as myself.

Though we get little tidbits of what the other band members have to say, we never fully meet them. We always are able to see their reactions, but there’s never a chance to see where Morrison and all the others met, and we never get to see how close they really were to Morrison.

Consensus: Though it’s not one of Oliver Stone’s finest films, The Doors is exciting and well-acted, but never shows anything good from Morrison and its innacuracies start to get a little out-of-hand by the end of the first act.

5/10=Rentall!!!!

Havoc (2005)

White kids, please stay in the suburbs.

Havoc is a motion picture about the lives of wealthy Los Angeles, California, teenagers whose exposure to hip hop culture inspires them to imitate the gangster lifestyle. They run into trouble when they encounter a gang of Latino drug dealers, discovering they are not as street-wise as they had thought.

Now when I watched this film I couldn’t stop thinking about another coming-of-age film myself, Thirteen. They both have the same ideas of little suburban teenagers who want to act wild and be free, when really that’s not who they are.

Personally, Havoc really does connect to me cause there are a lot of people like these ones portrayed I know. The people I know try to act all gangster like they could kick anyone’s ass, when really they aren’t anything compared to the real thing.

This film captures that real well showing from the first encounter how different these two groups really are. The white kids always try to act all tough on their own homecourt, but when they go somewhere else they are a bunch of little chickens who are scared out of their minds.

There are a lot of really good dramatic scenes by the end of the film that really does keep this film going on to powerful. The way these two different cultures are portrayed is just really perfect as you can see the big differences, and the little similarities these two groups have in common.

I liked the movie and everything I just think it wasn’t anything different that I’ve seen before. It seems like the same old message,”keep your daughters inside the house”, and to be truly honest Havoc doesn’t do much to add to this message and make it even more powerful than previous films.

Yes, for all you little pervs out there, Anne Hathaway does get naked for this film. But please do not let that take you away from this film cause her acting is magnificent. I was surprised to see the same chick from The Princess Bride, dropping down(literally), and doing a very serious and complex role, and actually pull it off. Her and Bijou Phillips have great chemistry in this film and you can actually tell that they actually are friends as they do feel like it. The rest of the cast does well with stars such as Channing Tatum, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Freddy Rodriguez, but a lot of the good cast is underused and you rarely see them at all during this film.

Also, the ending was not as powerful as it could’ve been. The film doesn’t come full circle and connect at the end like many other films of this nature have. It leaves you with a little message that is powerful, but not powerful enough. I didn’t quite know what was the eventual resolution to these actions and what happened to the these characters at the end of the story.

Consensus: Havoc features a true message, magnificent performances, and some great looks on real life. But the film doesn’t become too powerful as it could’ve been and left me wondering just what was to happen to these characters by the end of the film.

6/10=Rentall!!!!!

Double Team (1997)

Note to future action movies: Professional Athletes cannot act!!

Jean Claude Van Damme plays counter-terrorist agent Jack Quinn, who is assigned to bring an elusive terrorist known as Stavros (Mickey Rourke) to justice. Things become personal when Stavros kidnaps Quinn’s pregnant wife after his own lover and child were killed in an assassination attempt that went awry. Aiding Quinn in his rescue is his flamboyant weapons dealer Yaz (Dennis Rodman).

Double Team is not a movie you think about for one second. It is basically a gimmick to put together a big-time action star with a big-time basketball star and put in absurd situations with a lot of special effects.

This is not as bad of a Van Damme film as some would expect, it’s just not good. The one thing that makes this film good is it’s well played action. Many of the scenes featured either gun fights or martial arts fights and I found this to be very entertaining. They weren’t slow or absurd, at times I found them fun and nice to watch.

When, the action isn’t happening though the plot just cuts right through. Some of the scenes where nothing is happening is pretty boring and highly unintelligent work. Much ado to the screenplay which calls out for some really dead dialogue.

With a Van Damme film you may know that there are obviously a lot of those bad one-liners, and to be truly honest they are worse than that. At first, they start out small and not to bad, then they just get insane and very corny. Rodman probably has about 15 references to basketball, and every one is basically bad.

This is Rodman’s first feature, and I must say it wasn’t as bad as I would’ve thought. He isn’t given much of a screenplay to work with so he has a very inadequate performance to say the least. Rourke does a pretty good and convincing job at playing the main villain here, and I found him to be the best out of the three.

The one thing that bothered me the most through this whole movie was that it’s score did not match any of the scenes at all. I found it to be quite dumb and not very up-tempo as many of the fight scenes were. I wish they would’ve had a better soundtrack with a little bit more rock or rap that could have made this film actually a little bit better.

Consensus: Double Team has some entertaining action and some good performances, but features a weak plot and some terrible jokes, that are really just made for the sake of being a gimmick.

4/10=SomeOleBullShiittt!!!!

Pirate Radio (2009)

Suck on that, Pirates Of The Carribean!!!!!

In 1966, a group of rogue British DJs set up a radio station on a tiny boat in the North Sea to broadcast generation-defining — and banned — music to millions. The crew includes boss Quentin (Bill Nighy), the Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Gavin (Rhys Ifans) and Dave (Nick Frost). But eager to sink the party is persnickety Sir Alistair Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh).

Now this was released in Britain a long time ago entitled The Boat That Rocks. I know they bummed down that film from 135 minutes to now a 115 minutes, and to be truly honest I was glad to know this.

The one thing I liked first about this film going in was that it was directed by Richard Curtis, who did British classics Four Weddings and a Funeral and Love Actually both are great comedies, and this one is a nice add to his resume. He makes sure that all the strong points within this film are brought up and resolved by the end, and make sure every little person on board gets enough face-time.

The film also does have many moments that are genuinely funny, just not hilarious as I would be expecting from a grade-A crew and cast like this. Too many jokes are played out to where they are funny, and then just out of nowhere become annoying. There are also too many jokes about lesbians, since there is a lesbian on board.

Also, I feel like this film could’ve been a lot more daring and raunchier with it’s material. I don’t know if this is weird or not but I was just expecting since this is a film about rock, I would expect a lot more rock stuff to be happening, but hey that’s just me.

The film has a great ensemble cast with some of the best British and notably one of the best American acts in it’s film, but it doesn’t quite capitalize on that. The cast is funny and the chemistry is good between them, but I felt like some of the screen time could have been given to more people like Seymour Hoffman and Nighy. They didn’t quite get a huge chance to show off their comedy, and at times are rarely seen.

The soundtrack to this film is what is the best part of this film. In some cases I would say but the soundtrack forget the movie, but for this I’m saying do both. The soundtrack is electrifying and what really keeps this film entertaining. Some cool elements to this film is that many of the songs actually do fit in with the scenes that are going on, so it did create a good and powerful mood for that one scene.

Consensus: Pirate Radio may be a little uneven at points and at times disappointing, but it has some good funny moments with an exciting soundtrack which makes this film exciting throughout.

7.5/10=Rentall!!!!

She Hate Me (2004)

Why so many people hated this really does go by me.

When John (Anthony Mackie) blows the whistle on his corrupt bosses at the biotech company where he works, he touches off a maelstrom of investigations headed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and winds up jobless. But when his ex-girlfriend (Kerry Washington) pays him to get her and her lesbian lover (Dania Ramirez) pregnant, he may have found his new calling.

This film is directed by one of my favorites, Spike Lee. It combines office politics, sexual politics, and well politics politics. The film has enough imagination and material for 3 movies the only problem is that it doesn’t know which film it wants to be.

I found this to be a problem throughout the whole film. Sometimes it would act like a sex farce, then suddenly change into a proactive drama about a scam within the banking system. I felt like if they had just stayed with the one mood throughout the whole film I think it would have made this film a lot much better.

Though the plot falls to pieces by the end I was always interested. The film never came off as boring and the intelligence of this film actually really did capture me. Spike Lee is the person I give credit to the most because he makes this film provocative, outrageous, and daring. In a world of timid and conditional movies, he swings for the fences and makes this film controversial in a way to get a point out there. Lee doesn’t lose faith in his characters and script and that is what really makes this film a daring but heartfelt story.

Anthony Mackie is what makes this film a great watch for me. He plays this person with such little pacing and when he snaps he just snaps. His acting really did make me feel as if I was watching a real person on screen and not once did I think he was a stereotype at all. Kerry Washington does the best job out of the whole supporting cast and what I was really astonished about is how she showed her love for her girlfriend and for her ex-husband both differently, and I felt like she was very believable as a lesbian.

One last problem I had with the film was that the whole thing about Mackie being able to go six times a night, and not having any side effects from it whatsoever. The chicks also some of the loudest and craziest orgasms that I have ever heard in a film and I felt that they were very unbelievable.

Consensus: She Hate Me has identity problems and gets out of hand at point, but I liked the courage and the entertainment that Lee brings to the table, and although the film never captures its message it still has some great acting and inventive ideas.

7.5/10=Rentall!!!!

Dude, Where’s My Car? (2000)

I remember when I watched this as a kid and thought it was the funniest thing. Now I don’t even know what I was thinking.

Jesse Montgomery (Ashton Kutcher) and Chester Greenburg (Seann William Scott) are hard-partying pizza-delivery dudes who wake up one morning with no recollection of what happened the previous night — including where they parked Jesse’s car! As they try to retrace their steps, they get mixed up with latex-clad transsexual strippers, a pot-smoking dog, invading aliens … and angry ostriches!

I look at this film and all I have to say is wait “Dude”, sounds like a Lebowski sequel. Sadly it is not and and to be truly honest it should’ve been cause with this story there was nowhere to go with this story.

The one thing I will give this film is that it is great to see with a bunch of friends. A lot of the dialouge is very quotable, though it’s stupid as hell. When I watched this with a bunch of my friends we we’re laughing cause it was stupid and some of it, but not too much of it was actually funny.

So the most annoying thing about the party is the protagonists of this film played by Kutcher and William Scott. They have good performances, but are really annoying and I didn’t find any of their lines hilarious at all. They sort of overdo the fact that they are a bunch of stoner to the point of where their just frickin stupid.

The plot goes from bad to worse in a total of 10 minutes into the film. By the end it really does get out of hand as it starts to do these lame-ass parodies of science-fiction films, and to be truly honest I found this not funny nor amusing, and just totally stupid to have.

The production value of this film just looked really cheaply made. I felt like I was in a really bad canceled in 3rd week TV sit-com. I know this is a minor complaint but I had a feeling that the film could’ve branched out rather than just staying in the same place doing nothing interesting at all.

One more note that if you actually watch this film and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, you will see so many similarities. However, Bill and Ted’s was good this is not.

Consensus: This is a dumb, cheaply made, and idiotic film that features unlikable characters and a bunch of stupid stoner jokes that aren’t the least bit amusing.

2/10=SomeOleBullShitttt!!!!

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Not one of the better films to watch on veterans day.

Marine recruits (including Matthew Modine and Vincent D’Onofrio) endure the grueling ordeal of basic training and later face the unrelenting Viet Cong during the 1968 Tet Offensive in this grim Stanley Kubrick drama, based on a novel by Gustav Hasford.

Personally, I love Stanley Kubrick films. I think his way of film-making is so rich and grand that when he died not many knew what a legacy he left behind. Kubrick right here doesn’t stop to impress me.

One thing to point out about this film is that it isn’t your average normal war film. There are many scenes of combat, but most of it is what goes on before being shipped out to the war, and what goes on when you are shipped out in the war. Some will find it boring, I found it refreshing to finally see what these soldiers we’re like before the war, and in between it.

The fantastic element of the movie is its portrayal of the moral ambiguity of that war, the soldiers’ awareness of this issue, and their commitment to fight on, not for country or cause, but for one another, as well as an undefined inertia.

The way Kubrick has this movie filmed is also very extraordinary. He films these takes while war is happening and the camera moves up and down as if you were watching the view of a soldier in combat with them. I felt like I was right there with them and felt very much more compelled to the story. Also, there are plenty of other just beautiful shots that really do make this film look even more spectacullar.

The screenplay is what really plays out well in this film. The dialogue here feels so realistic and so genuine that I thought I was watching a real film about real people. There is also some little blends of black comedy that really do make this film great and a lot more enjoyable than some would think.

Though I liked Kubrick’s direction I just don’t think it was meant for this type of movie. Kubrick is known for making these sc-fi thriller films about the unexplainable. With this film he gets a little too dynamic and doesn’t hit the right cord with this film as he has done with his plenty of others. I think that his directing is good just not made for this film, and what takes it away from being great.

The little supporting acts in this film really do shine. R. Lee Ermy does the best job in this whole film and fully does capture this essence of a hard as nails drill sergeant, who with his orders and yells, makes this film amazing. The only problem I had with the acting was that the film is centered around Matthew Modine, and he doesn’t really do a great job in this film and I didn’t find him very believable until the very end.

I also thought that the ending could’ve been so much better. Kubrick is known for his great endings to any film, and he plays the ending with a cheesy and corny not so anti-war message ending.

Consensus: Though it is good not great, Full Metal Jacket has great direction from Kubrick, realistic screenplay, and some great visuals, but suffers from Kubrick becoming his own worst enemy early on in the film.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Zombieland (2009)

Killing zombies has never looked so much fun!

Zombieland stars Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin as survivors of a zombie apocalypse. Together they take an extended road trip in an attempt to find a sanctuary free from zombies, following a set of “rules” designed to keep them alive where others have failed, all the while trying to “enjoy the little things”, killing zombies in a variety of creative ways.

When I first started following this film back in February I was interested a little bit because I love zombie films and I love comedies so you know when those two mash together I’m just gonna go crazy. Then I saw the trailer and thought,”well I guess we’re looking at the American Shaun Of The Dead”. However, now that I look at it, if people are choosing whether to see this or Shaun Of The Dead, I say this one.

Zombieland has some amazingly nice touches on its comedy in this film. It has a lot of comedy that you won’t get when its said, but afterward you understand it and find it hilarious. The jokes were either sarcastic, ironic, or plain and simply just obvious jokes but were still very funny, much ado to Eisenberg’s hilarious narration.

The film also isn’t all about the comedy it actually does have some “heartfelt” moments. I found this to be very odd since it is a zombie comedy, but overall very effective with it’s highly witty screenplay.

Shall I not forget to mention that there is plenty of gore and violence to keep any “gore-lover” happy. The way they kill the zombies are very creative and that’s what really makes this film stand out. Not just with your car, or with a piano, or with a shotgun, but at the end there is this whole amusement park sequence where they use some to kill zombies.

The whole cast does a great job at being really funny, witty, and most of all likable. The characters are mostly 2 dimensional  stereotypes, but they actually turn out to be funnier than some would expect. Eisenberg does once again at playing the same character he does in every film so not much changes here. Harrelson plays a stereotypical B-movie hard ass really well, and it seems like he’s the funniest and shows us that this was the role he was born to play (other than Natural Born Killers). But the best in the film that is definitely worth full price of admission is the secret cameo star, that once you see it you will not stop laughing.

I think my only problem with the film is that it seems very scary at the start, and then slows way down for alot of character and jokes, with barely any zombies at all, to the spectacular finale. I loved all aspects of the film, but it would of much needed to mix all these together better, to make it truly outstanding film, a shock indeed, plus the gore was alittle on the short side for me. Also, so much more could have been added to make this film even better.

Consensus: The makers of Zombieland aren’t really doing anything different for the zombie comedy genre, but make a great collection of gore, comedy, and violence with a little touch of heart to make this whole film a great and fun experience.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!

Road Trip (2000)

After watching this film, I really want to go on a road trip.

College student Josh (Breckin Meyer) makes two big mistakes: He cheats on his girlfriend — and videotapes it. When his roommates accidentally mail her the tape, Josh and his buddies hit the road to intercept it. Countless antics occur along the way, including MTV’s Tom Green feeding a mouse to a boa constrictor.

Road Trip is a film that came out during and after the wave of the whole American Pie generation. However, this film seems as its geared towards a younger raunchy audience, actually could’ve worked for anyone. Well, not everyone.

This film really does have some genuinely funny moments that occur during the span of the story. The events that transpire during the road trip are very funny, and sometimes actually very well-done.

The one thing I really like about the humor in the film is that it can be very disgusting and raunchy, but they actually have some seriousness and funny jokes. The screenplay is fantastic and is the main strong point of this film. I felt this is how real people talk, and how they would react to the same exact situation. The racy dialogue in this film actually does work and for once I wasn’t totally grossed out.

The problem with it’s comedy is that it is very hit-or-miss. Some moments are funnier than others and some are just genuinely not funny at all, and are just put in there to be overly raunchy. I think that there were plenty of times that the film could’ve really pulled scenes off and make them comedic gold but just end up not being very funny.

Many of the situation were also just way too over-done. Though I know this is a movie, and a lot of this junk wouldn’t happen it really does get a little too out of hand and not very believable. This movie, as with other comedies, throws political correctness out the window and anyone is made the subject for jokes and laughter.

I did actually enjoy the cast as each of the four dudes on the trip all had their own little scenes too shine, they were all so different and all their performances are actually very comical. Sean William Scott is basically playing the same character he does in every movie, but he is what takes the gold home in this film. Tom Green may turn you away from this film, but isn’t on-screen for a very long time, and at points you may actually find him to be funny, other than his usual weird type of comedy.

Consensus: Road Trip is funny and well-acted, it just isn’t as hilarious as it could’ve been and many of the times the film just tries to go for the heavy take of raunchy humor.

7/10=Rentall!!!

Cry Freedom (1987)

When I think of Black people, i really do think of Denzel.

In a segregated South Africa, black nationalist Steven Biko (Denzel Washington) and white newspaper editor Donald Woods (Kevin Kline) are unlikely friends with a common goal: ending apartheid. When Biko’s beliefs land him in prison and he’s covertly murdered by South African authorities, Woods rallies to expose the injustice.

I have seen a lot of apartheid films, and in the end they all seem to have the same preachy vibe to it. Except this one is less of a message and more of a story, which really kept me going.

Cry Freedom has a lot of really powerfully disturbing scenes that really do capture the essence of this time in Africa. The constant use of imagery throughout the film, had me taken back by the true reality that lied within Africa and how it’s people were treated by this new government taking.

The one thing that’s very fresh about this film, is that the very powerful scenes that feature Biko’s funeral has Woods at it, and the film could’ve easily ended with that scene and had a little tribute to all the victims. However, the film doesn’t do that and it goes into a completely different direction, about telling the story of Woods and his family escaping Africa.

When this happened, I had the most problems with this film. I felt like the story became too much like a thriller, and really lost it’s message that it was trying to get at it with. I felt the slow pace really did make this film at times very unbearable and feel dragged at points that could have been interesting. Some scenes that were in this film didn’t feel like they we’re needed and actually could’ve been taken away so it could break down the film’s straneous 2 hour and 37 minute time-limit.

I liked the performance from Washington as he shows early on that he was destined for glory. He underplays his character with a sense of truth and despair without getting too preachy and annoying. Kline also gives a good performance taking on the latter part of the film, and actually almost doing a better more effective job than Washington, but sadly he doesn’t.

Consensus: Cry Freedom has some very powerful scenes and strong performances, but lags with it’s slow pace mixed in with a very long last 30 minutes.

8/10=Matinee!!

The Box (2009)

Honestly could this title get any more catchier??!!

A disfigured NASA employee named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) informs Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Mardsen) Lewis that they have 24 hours to decide if they want to push a button inside a box that will give them a cool million — but a complete stranger will die at the same time.

When I first found out that this movie was directed by Richard Kelly, who directed one of my favorites Donnie Darko, I was actually a little excited to see it. Basically Donnie Darko’s whole story is basically making fun of the horror film genre but putting more goofier stuff into it, but making it a better film all together. This film not so much.

To first start off the plot is really simple. You push the button, and someone dies right? Well yes, that happens but then out of nowhere it gets out of control with weird staring people, and secret alien organizations. The film gets a little too out of control, and gets really crazy.

Mostly I just found myself laughing at it sometimes. There are just some scenes that look and sound hilarious. The way events happen in this film are very strange, and will really make you laugh.

Another thing that made Donnie Darko so good that it wasn’t afraid to push a little bit of buttons with it’s fact of being raunchy, and a very controversial script. This film doesn’t do that at all. Yeah there are some scenes that could’ve given it an R-rating but it doesn’t go too far and in the end I feel like it was too afraid to go anywhere. It’s script is also very cliched, with a lot of the same lines already used in a lot of recent horror films, that I could’ve sworn I’ve heard already.

I really liked how the story was actually original and was interesting, but also imaginative, which kept me glued to the seat. Though at some points I was wondering what was going on, I couldn’t help but still watch and find out what happens in the end.

The cast does a pretty good job in this film as well. Mardsen and Diaz are very believable as a couple although they rarely show love, but the one who really stands out is Frank Langella. Langella does a very good job at being an actually creepy villian that isn’t very new, but also one that your terrified at overall.

Consensus: The Box is imaginative and interesting, but becomes too unintentionally funny and gets too out-of-hand with no basic message like Donnie Darko.

3/10=SomeOleBullShiitt!!!!

Blood Simple (1985)

What can the Coen Brothers not do?

In a jealous rage, Texas tavern owner Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya) hires unscrupulous private detective Loren Visser (M. Emmett Walsh) to not only tail Marty’s two-timing spouse(Frances McDormand, in her big-screen debut) but also murder her and her paramour (John Getz). But events take a surprising turn when the gumshoe double-crosses his client.

This is the directorial debut of the Coen Brothers, and I have got to say this is some of their best work I have ever seen. Put this up against Fargo, Big Lebowski, and Barton Fink, they are nothing compared to this film.

Let’s just say if you want a stylized film neo-noir you have one right here. The cinematography from Barry Sonenfield. There are just scenes where they just have one image throughout a whole scene, and then there is one scene where it literally jumps over a guy laying his head down at a bar. The camera feels like another person itself, and you are that person as the story goes on.

Though this is big in this film, the Coen Brothers never really let that get in the way of their great story they have here of double-crossing, and then double-double-crossing, and who’s really dead and who’s actually alive.

I liked how everything that happened, happened for a reason and went with the story. The scenes weren’t put in just to be funny or more bloody but put in to add to this amazing story.

The screenplay is what is really rich, and becomes so realistic by the end of the film, I’m wondering if this was based on a true story. There are elements of irony, black comedy, and dark words in the screenplay, and all of the touches really felt genuine and not just put on to change to mood a little bit.

The acting from M. Emmett Walsh is really magnificent. He plays this character that we don’t know if we should hate or like because though he is a hit man, and a low-life. He still has that little charm that makes this film reasonably funny. John Hedaya, is very good in this film as well, and I just wish there were more scenes with him the main power point of it.

There was only one problem that I didn’t like about the film and it was that the ending really did have me confused. When it ends you know there’s a point that the film is trying to make but it really didn’t come across me too well.

Consensus: The Coen Brother’s debut is slick, rich, and most of all creatively told, and features some of the best material from them I have ever seen.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!

Cobra (1986)

Oh god Stallone!

Marion Cobretti (Sylvester Stallone), a grizzly, loose-cannon cop, is on the trail of a dangerous serial killer who calls himself the “Night Slasher” (Brian Thompson). Now, Cobra not only has to catch the bad guy, he also has to protect the one woman (Brigitte Nielsen) who knows the killer’s identity. The body count rises as Cobra takes on an evil cult — and liberally doles out justice.

So when I thought this movie was actually going to be OK, I took a look at the poster and knew I was in for a world of hurt.

I mean honestly, just look at that quote. Tell me you cannot say,”Crime is a disease. Meet the cure”, is not the most cheesiest tag line you have ever seen. To be truly honest out of this whole movie that is probably the best line. You think I’m lying, but I can assure you this, I’m not.

The whole script was meant to be centered towards a comedy feel, with a lot of action. That would have been a good idea, but instead the film goes a serious tone with plenty of action to satisfy.

This film wasn’t meant to be a comedy, but to me, it turned out to be one of the funniest movies of all-time, un-intentionally that is.  The lines in this film are downright the worst but at the same time funniest lines I have ever heard. When we get to see these characters for who they really are, it is downright laughable, but mostly just unbearable.

Almost everything about this whole film is cheesy. The lines, the music is downright terrible with those 80’s Miami Vice themes coming in, and even the villains. I didn’t find these villains at all harmful, and also very misplaced. I felt like all their creepy-ass acting and deliverance of lines weren’t really meant for an action thriller like this, and really made this film even more comical.

The one good thing about this film that I will give it, is that the action is very respectable. There are just some scenes that look pretty good and are actually exciting rather than the same old stuff happening.

Sly Stallone really needs to remove his name from the credit’s on this one forever. This is some bad material he is given but also some of the worst acting I have ever seen from him in my life. His character is basically one-dimensional and not at all interesting. When he tries to give us little speeches on who we are, I couldn’t help but think maybe if he didn’t act like The Hulk throughout the whole film his character would have been the least mildly interesting.

Consensus: Though with some good action, Cobra is down-right terrible with some of the cheesiest lines you will ever hear, horrible 80’s music, and most of all some pretty terrible acting courtesy of Good Ole Sly, himself.

2/10=SomeOleBullShiitt!!!!

Love & Basketball (2000)

I never thought that two completely different things could go together so well.

It’s about winning, losing and playing the game. Monica (Sanaa Lathan) and Quincy (Omar Epps) grow up next door to each other playing basketball, fighting and falling in love. When simultaneous turns in the big leagues throw their off-court relationship off-kilter, the pair discovers that very little is fair in Love & Basketball.

This is a very savvy but mostly warm-hearted sports film that is kind of like the 21st century basketball reaction to Bull Durham. I though that this movie would be a little too African American for me, seeing as it was produced by Spike Lee. But, I had a wonderful time with it and it actually turned out to be one of my favorite romances in awhile.

This is a sports movie that is not how each particular game turns out. It’s about the love and the faith these two people have for the game. It’s about practicing for the game, prepping for the game, and most of all winning the game. Not every film you see about basketball shows the practice scenes where as this one shows them, and the effects it has afterward.

The one thing that was very fresh about this film was that it did not take advantage of the subject they had. Since it is the first film to feature woman playing the game of basketball, it really does focus on how Monica feels about the game and doesn’t use it for more profanities.

This film really does start to shoot itself in its own foot by the end. Almost every scene becomes more cliched than the one before, and it really started to aggravate me and have me wondering how a film so genuine about love and all it’s speed bumps could be so oblivious to what is thought about when thought about Romance films.

This film does feature some real great acting from both of its two leads. I found Epps very smart and believable, and Lathan an absolute sensation, she’s strong, smart, witty, and most of all believable. The chemistry between the two stars is exactly right. They are entirely believable as friends, as rivals and as lovers this is a tricky combination for any acting pair. There are also plenty of side characters that take over this film and do some good jobs at supporting acts.

Consensus: Though it is heavily cliched, Love & Basketball features some fresh writing and direction, along with two very believable performances and unmatched chemistry between the Epps and Lathan.

8/10=Rentall!!!

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Jeez, war films in 1998 took over the Oscars.

With an all-star cast — featuring Sean Penn, George Clooney, Nick Nolte and Adrien Brody — director Terrence Malick’s lyrical and beautiful retelling of James Jones’s novel about the 1942 battle for Guadalcanal was nominated for seven Oscars. With narration by Pvt. Witt (Jim Cavaziel), the men of C-Company become a tight-knit group as they each individually face the horrors of war to hold onto a key-positioned airfield.

The Thin Red Line, is basically a remake of the original 1964 flick, and to be truly honest after watching this film, I don’t think I will have to dig back into the archives and watch that.

Most War films over-exploit the gore and the violence of the war, but never really capture the feelings of the war within it’s soldiers. This film, captured all the feeling imaginable. We really do get to feel what these characters feel through a lot of emotional and overall beautiful images that are being narrated over by soldiers that are present in the film.

Immediately, I was caught up in this film, even in its first frame that features an alligator. It not once lost my interest until the very end where I did start to believe the moral story of good and evil started to wane on, and become a little boring and I didn’t that there wasn’t any material to work from.

Terrence Malick returns to film-making after his 20 year absence, and it doesn’t feel like he missed those years at all. He without a doubt capture the right emotion at the right time with every little scene. The cinematography that he worked on really made us feel the intensity of fighting an enemy that was hidden. Malick should’ve won Best Director for this film because although he doesn’t steer this film into perfection, he does steer into the right and very inspired direction.

Visually, this film is just one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. There are some scenes that are so beautiful, so touching, and so inspirational that I couldn’t just help but shed a tear. Some scenes as I stated before are over-lapped by little narration from the soldiers, but you almost forget about the speaking and can’t stop but gaze at how beautiful the look and feel this movie really does have.

The all-star cast really does a good job in this film and really do step away from their public images and create characters that we like and can relate to. Out of the whole cast Nick Nolte is who I really think does the best. He is angry, ruthless, and also very misguided and you can see that coming out of his performance. I wish that there was more time for these big stars to interact with one another but overall I was pleased with the way some of these characters were used. I also liked how the Japanese weren’t portrayed as these savage killers who have no souls. Instead, they were shown with having as much fear and terror as much as the U.S., and that’s what really separates this film from others.

The only complaint that I really do think killed this film to be as much as a success as Saving Private Ryan, was that there are way too many scenes of just down time. In SPR, the down time was actually interesting and you actually got a sense of what those characters lives we’re like before war. However, in this the down time is submitted to beautiful visuals but overall not very interesting dialouge that I thnk made this film not win one Oscar.

Consensus: The Thin Red Line is visually astonishing, incredibly-well directed, and features amazingly true messages about how the war turns people into animals. However, the film offers to much time for boredom and doesn’t quite connect as well as Saving Private Ryan.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006)

Never would I have thought that a film starring Shia LaBeouf be one of the most gut-wrenching films I have ever seen.

Robert Downey Jr. stars in director Dito Montiel’s autobiographical coming-of-age drama set in blue-collar Queens, N.Y. While his young friends all seem to end up as junkies, inmates or corpses, Dito (Downey) miraculously escapes the same fate. He attributes that to divine intervention from a group of “saints,” who are the same friends whose path he tries so hard to avoid. Dianne Wiest, Chazz Palminteri, Shia LaBeouf and Rosario Dawson co-star.

Now this film is directed by the same person who wrote the memoir it is based on, and I must say there is basically no one else that can direct this other than Dito Montel, in his directorial debut.

The film is told through flashbacks, though it is set in the present, and I really did like the way it was filmed. I felt like it couldn’t have been filmed either way. We really do understand these characters right from the get-go, and we start to understand the occurrences that caused Dito to leave his  New York home grounds.

I was reading other reviews before I saw this film and so many people we’re just bashing it for going a little too far with N.Y. City stereotypes. To be truly honest I think since this is Dito’s film, and he basically wrote the story, I think he would know how everything really was around New York.

I love coming-of-age tales, but this one really ranks high with one of my favorites of that category. The whole humanity and the realism of this film is captured through it’s screenplay. The screenplay is very realistic, showing all sides of comedy, drama, and most of all, tragedy. The film really doesn’t fail at all with it’s screenplay and never goes too far with it’s cliches.

Shia LaBeouf is very good in this and shows his talents in acting, that would come to benefit him later on his career. The whole cast all do amazing jobs but the one who really stands out in my mind is Channing Tatum. I felt like this film would have not succeeded if they had somebody else playing Antonio. Tatum is tough as nails, but also very troubled and you can see that in Tatum’s performance as he plays someone different then the usual big tough guy he does in all of his other films.

The only problem I had with this film was that when it was all said and done I felt like there were more aspects of Dito’s life that weren’t covered and just forgotten that could’ve really helped this film out, but not that much of a complaint after all.

Consensus: One of the most powerful and realistic coming-of-age films I have ever seen. A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints, is well-acted, sharp direction from new-comer Dito Montiel, and paints a wonderful portrait of what friendship really means.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!

The Phantom (1996)

I was very upset to hear that this wasn’t a film based on Danny Phantom.

In 1930s New York City, the purple-clad Phantom’s longtime effort to crush a culture of evil pits him — and his dashing alter ego, Kit Walker (Billy Zane) — against megalomaniacal villain Xander Drax (played by Treat Williams).

I have never really heard about the comic books that this film is based on, and to be truly honest I was kind of interested in reading them before I saw this movie. Now, i don’t think I need to read them at all.

The comic books are made from the 30’s and I liked how the film stayed close to the old look, rather than having it all modernized and changed up for the modern audience.

The real big problem I had with this film however, is that it’s script is really god awful. The lines in this film are so cliched and cheesy that I don’t know if they were intentional or not but I really did laugh my ass off by the stupidity of these little lines.

Also, another problem I found with The Phantom was that it’s story wasn’t different from any other superhero film, and when the action wasn’t happening I felt the film dragged on for a bit too long. The story gets weaker and weaker as it goes on, and when the film’s all said and done with you will probably forget about the story itself.

The action scenes in this film really are it’s high points. There are no use of CGI, and all of the action fighting stunts look real. When The Phantom falls and hits the ground, he looks like he hit the ground and is affected, and you don’t feel like he has that sense of cat-lives one bit.

The colors in this film make this film even better to look at. The blending of a lot of bright colors make this film very astonishing and it keeps your attention as you watch on, and adds a little more to the action scenes.

I can really tell that Billy Zane is really trying his hardest with this character but nothing good can really come out. The poor script has his character delivering cheesy lines beyond belief, and never really giving us a real look of who is the man behind the mask. The supporting cast is really well done and I found them to be sometimes more interesting than The Phantom himself.

Consensus: The Phantom is very nice to look at, but starts to overcome itself with a horrible script and a not so interesting plot when the action wasn’t going down.

5.5/10=Rentalll!!

Psycho (1960)

Truly the definitive horror film that will never get old.

When larcenous real estate clerk Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) goes on the lam with a wad of cash and hopes of starting a new life, she ends up at the notorious Bates Motel, where twitchy manager Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) cares for his housebound mother. The place seems quirky but fine … until Marion decides to take a shower.

What could possibly be said about Psycho that hasn’t been said before? It certainly must be one of the most famous movies of all time. Having heard so much about it, I really doubted if the movie could live up to my expectations. Amazingly, it actually exceeded my expectations.

Psycho is basically a horror film that was the first to ever come out, and it might as well be one of the greatest. I’m not a huge fan of those gore-fest films with over excessive nudity, blood, and violence. So because this film was basically made back in the 60’s there really is none of what we get nowadays with these horror films.

The one amazing thing about Psycho that not many other films do is that it really is a timeless film that really has aged perfectly. It isn’t corny nor is it dumb now that we look at it, it is still a great thrilling horror film.

Alfred Hitchcock really is one of the greatest director’s of all-time. I’m not talking in the horror genre, I’m talking of all film. He uses these camera angles and looks during each scenes to really have us capture the essence that something just isn’t right. The famous shower scene that almost everyone knows is great, and really is worth, just to see.

Anthony Perkins shines in this film as the creepiest mo fo in the whole film as Norman Bates. He creates one of the first great creepy characters on film, and he actually does make this person seem creepy as he talks more and more.

Consensus: Alfred Hitchcock shows he is the greatest director of all-time with Psycho. A film that has aged really well, and is an amazing watch of how much it’s influence in the horror genre that we see all today is in.

10/10=Full Pricee!!

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Next film for Halloween is Dawn Of The Dead remake.

Based on the George Romero 1979 gore classic, this remake takes place as the United States is overrun (after a plague) by millions of corpses who walk the earth as cannibalistic zombies. A small group of survivors, including a nurse (Sarah Polley) and a police officer (Ving Rhames), try to find shelter within a massive shopping mall. But the zombies have a kind of sense memory and start arriving — in droves — for a shopping spree.

This is not so much of a remake as it is an update of the 1979 classic. The whole premise remains faithful to the original but then after that makes its own elements, which really was a good thing after all.

Dawn Of The Dead really does succeed because its use of exciting action and most of all, the gore. The added on blood and violence really does make this film exciting and fun to watch. Also, in the original the zombies were really slow and if you just ran they would’ve never caught up to you. Now, they are fast as a bullet and you can’t run or hide barely, and I think that is what makes this film even better.

The film also has little unriddle social commentary, and zero exposition. For instance, when a government official is asked “what are these things? are they contagious?” he simply responds “We don’t know!”. Giving you this idea of nobody knowing what is going on.

Zack Snyder, in his directorial debut, really does show some really great direction in this film. Many of the scenes he films with the action are slick and feature a lot of good camera angles that really do fit the part of the action.

I only had little minor problems with this film that aren’t as bad as you would expect. In George A. Romero’s 1979 Dawn Of The Dead, there was a lot more comedy and a satirical take on these zombies and the incidents that are being caused. I felt like this film was toned one way throughout, and although it did have some comedy it was more blatant than wise, as the original one was.

I also found the origins of why these zombies came to be very unknown and I wish I knew more of what was actually going on.

Consensus: Dawn Of The Dead is a gruesome, violent, tasteless, and well-directed take on the 1979 classic.

9/10=Fulll Pricee!!!!

Candyman (1992)

Next Horror film in line is Candyman.

While researching urban myths, grad student Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) learns about the Candyman (Tony Todd), a hook-handed creature who’s said to haunt a Chicago housing project. In this creepy film based on a Clive Barker story, the Candyman is made flesh by other people’s belief in him. Not surprisingly, Lyle manages to summon him. Soon, the Candyman has committed a series of murders, and the cops are holding Lyle responsible.

Candy man at points can be seen as your typical thriller with horror elements, but is also part slasher.

I was really surprised by how this film really does turn out to be effective, because it actually does ground itself so realistically, in a city where they do not believe in urban legends, until the very end of the movie.

However, I felt that this film really does suffer from a script and story that starts to drag on a little. I thought that some of the lines were pretty cheesy compared to others, and weren’t as witty as you would expect coming from a movie of this nature.

I also did not find this movie as terrifying as I thought it would have. Tony Todd really does look like an old 1970 pimp with the bad jacket and the killer claw. Didn’t really find his character that all too scary, but I liked how they set him up to be like a normal person, although we never really get where this guy comes from and why he seems to spark so much havoc, one time after another.

I also think that the story really would have worked well if it didn’t succumb to the over-use of the blood and gore scenes. The film features many little flashbacks of previous murders from The Candyman, and are so disgusting and down right grotesque, that I was a little confused if I was watching a remake of Friday the 13th.

Virginia Madsen actually does take this film by storm and give it her all. She isn’t your typical female horror leading woman who fights the odds. She seems real, with real problems, and most of all with a real purpose, and that purpose is to finally track down The Candyman. Tony Todd, also gives a good performance here as The Canydman, but isn’t seen very much to come off as really scary or frightful. It’s just the look, that looks like an outtake from Shaft.

Consensus: Candyman is smarter than your typical slasher-horror film, but with some added elements that weren’t needed and a not so frightening antagonist, Candyman falls short of horror film greatness.

7/10=Rentall!!

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

The next horror film is sometimes considered a horror film, but not really.

Director F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich) yearns to create the most terrifying vampire tale imaginable. Unknown actor Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe), cast as the vampire Count Orlock, makes an impressive debut as filming begins, even as he hides an unearthly secret, the secret that he is secretly is a vampire.

Shadow Of The Vampire, is a reimagianing and also look behind the scenes, of the making of the silent film 1922 classic Nosferatu. I usually don’t like these movies where they tell just false stories about something big, but for this film I let that slide and I actually got a good experience from it.

Shadow Of The Vampire contains more humor than I expected, as well as the backstage movie lore, with an underlining but focused horror story. It’s a lot to get into one story, and sometimes the progress the film goes through is a little uneven. At many points, there was a little too many blood and gore for a film of this nature. It turned me away from the film and I didn’t know whether or not to laugh or be frightened by Count Orlock, as I didn’t find him scary nor compelling.

I thought the setting was very eerie, as they were on the island all by themselves making this film, but I didn’t feel much tension throughout many of the scenes. This lack of tension also made the last 20 minutes of this film seem very predictable and just a bit tedious.

I liked the way the film was directed however. I felt like many of the scenes actually did mean something and they weren’t just put in to add a scene, and show how it ended up in Nosferatu. The scenes where you get to see how the scenes are filmed, by Malkovich were very funny and also very amusing.

Willem Dafoe is what really makes this film for what it is, he looks, acts, and just feels like Max Schrek. After this film, I actually looked at some old shots from Nosferatu and I was really astonished by how much Dafoe basically embodied the life and soul of Schrek, but also not forgetting to be creepy. Also, Joh Malkovich is dry, self-centered, and overall in mannered as the director, and really does capture a director that does start to obsess with getting his work done and out there.

Consensus: Though it has some rough editing, Shadow Of The Vampire is funny, creepy, and overall a good look at the filming of Nosferatu, with an incredible performance from Dafoe.

7.5/10=Rentall!!!

Tremors (1990)

For all this week leading up to Halloween I will be doing 5 movie reviews on horror films startiing with this one first.

Hick handymen Val McKee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward) can barely eke out a living in the Nevada hamlet of Perfection, so they decide to leave town — despite am admonition from a shapely seismology coed (Finn Carter) who’s picking up odd readings on her equipment. Before long, Val and Earl discover what’s responsible for those readings: 30-foot-long carnivorous worms with a proclivity for sucking their prey underground.

Tremors is sort of a present-day Western, with some really insane scinece fiction elements. The Tremors in the titles, refers to the shock effects caused by these worms tunneling underground.

I can really see why Tremors found a lot of really good exposure after it’s disasterous box office debut. It has some good elements that weren’t really caught by the genre at the time. What makes it most different is that it really does start off like a normal comedy, with some mildly funny jokes mixed in with little heartfelt moments. Then halfway through the film it turns itself sideways and becomes a totally different film with plenty of horror B-movie elements.

There are many elements that really do make this film a bag load of fun. Even just the fact that there is a bunch of giant worms as credible villains makes it worth while, but it really can’t sustain itself for too long.

There we’re an awful lot of satrcial takes on many reoccuring characters throughout this movie that were based on the conventional characters from horror movies. However, after awhile I found these little parodies to be lame and the jokes to be even more of somewhat overrun.

I also didn’t like the addition to the over-excessive use of the modernized blood and gore. I thought this movie would’ve really refrained from it, and keep to it’s natural roots but really just does this too much after a long time and becomes a little disgusting.

The whole nature of this film is really what makes this film the more enjoyable, is that it really doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are a lot of funny staged reactions, and the tenseful scenes mixed with some of the most obvious score music really do make this film all the while funny and joyful.

Tremors has a diverse cast that really does hit the button with many of their scenes. Kevin Bacon was really good and I thought it was nice to see that he could carry a movie so early in his career, but it’s mostly the side performers that make this a worth while. Fred Ward, really does an excellent job playing the witty but also more intelligent buisness partner of Bacon, and males this film a much funnier trip.

Consensus: Tremors is a different horror film with some good comedy, and a well-acted diverse cast. But, doesn’t quite stick with me as I thought it should’ve.

8/10=Matinee!!

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

There’s a one inside of us.

Max (Max Records) imagines running away from his mom and sailing to a far-off land where large talking beasts — Ira, Carol, Douglas, the Bull, Judith and Alexander — crown him as their king, play rumpus, build forts and discover secret hideaways. Voices by Chris Cooper, James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, and many others.

Once in a lifetime a very noble director will get a hold of a wonderful children book and really turn it into something magical, this is close to what I thought I was going to have.

I had a really hard time with this film overall. I was expecting a beautiful, exciting adventure from the out-of-this world mind from Spike Jonze. However, all the hype that the film was getting it quite didn’t live up to what I was expecting. Well, I guess adapting a movie from a 10 page book, isn’t the easiest thing to do.

The emotional depth this film goes into is perfect and really handled well in this film. There are just some really profoundly beautiful scenes that really do shine with emotion and old natural beauty. Jonze connects the character of Max to all the other Wild Things, and shows how both of their lives are both equal in every single way, and how they can both learn from one another. Jonze even goes as far as to sort of get adults thinking about these messages about childhood, and how they felt at their age as well.

The only problem I had with this film is that it just wasn’t as powerful as it could’ve been. There were so many scenes that could’ve been handled better if the right attitude was given towards it. In most of these scenes I almost thought that Jonze was going to pull off the scene and really make it memorable. However, Jonze takes another road that doesn’t seem like the best solution for it.

Another problem I had with this film was that although there is a lot of kid-friendly elements to this film, I don’t think that kids will quite have a ball with this film. This movie is more about the message of Max, and most kids won’t look at this. They’ll look at the Wild Things and how scary they look, and the little fun montages, not necessarily the message that Jonze was really going for here.

The little things of this film we’re really good add-ons however. I liked the soundtrack with Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and I thought all of those songs really did connect to the mood of each scene. The visuals that combine the elements of people in costumes, CGI, and animations. They look real and actually could get a nomination cause of how spectacular they look.

Max Records, who plays little Max does a good job at showing some future star quality. Though he can be a little annoying at some points, I really did feel like he was one of the more realistic protagonists in a film in a long time. The voices in this film are good as well, but the best has got to be James Gandolfini as Carol. He really does give the emotion that is needed to play this character and overall has a more effective job than any other of the Wild Things.

The ending that most of you all know from the book, is not as emotionally-charged as you would think. I left the film with a very bad taste cause of the ending, because overall it was just a lame ending for a very powerful movie.

Consensus: Spike Jonze, doesn’t deliver on every spectrum, but does create a very true, emotionally-powerful fable about what it’s really like as a child and the kind’s of turmoil they face at such a young age.

8/10=Matinee!!!

RocknRolla (2008)

Guy Ritchie doing what he does best.

Thandie Newton and Gerard Butler co-star in director Guy Ritchie’s crime thriller about crooks from London’s underworld who set out to nab millions of dollars left for the taking when a Russian mobster’s real estate scam falls apart. Tom Wilkinson plays a powerful crime boss, with Jeremy Piven and rapper Ludacris appearing as record producers who get strong-armed into looking for a drug-addicted rock star.

It’s good to see Guy Ritchie get back on the horse with this smoothly crafted tale of greed and deceit among thieves. Seeing the cast selection made me feel like Ritchie was a magical pizza-maker who somehow knew my favorite toppings without having to even take my order. Each ingredient combined for a perfect medley to my movie taste buds.

Now for me I loved Guy Ritchie’s previous gangster-comedy films, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, are my two favorites of all-time. Now RocknRolla, is like those two but with a little less flair and charm that his last two have held up so well.

The film’s jokes aren’t as funny until you actually think about them and then you finally get them. This is a lot of different humor from Guy Ritchie, as the jokes are far more blatant and obvious, at some points. I never thought thought that Ritchie would go for the gay jokes, but in this film I guess he does, and there actually pretty funny.

The best thing about all of Ricthie’s stories is that no matter how confusing they can get, they seem to all come together by the end. At times watching RocknRolla, I was wondering if or even how this was all going to come all together. It does and I was really shocked and overall I thought it was a good turn out.

I just felt like this film could’ve been a lot more dynamic and different from Ritchie’s others. Still, it isn’t better than them two and it really isn’t that different. I’m glad that Ritchie went back to his London-based roots cause obviously he’s amazing at them, but I just wanted something new and a little bit more than what I got.

I liked the cast a lot. Gerard Butler does a great job here, and he and Idris Elba, actually do have great chemistry as two crooks. Thandie Newtown’s character wasn’t that interesting and I thought she could’ve been a better character. But the one that really shines here is Tom Wilkinson, who really does make a great villain, that we all want to see dead but also we kind of like because of his smart way of business making. Never would I have thought a film with Ludacris and Tom Wilkinson together actually be good.

Consensus: RockNRolla goes back to Ricthie’s roots, and is a credible caper gangster comedy. It just doesn’t feature anything new and seems like overall this genre may be soon to die out.

6.5/10=Rentall!!!

Fighting (2009)

The 21st century Fight Club, without the brain-busting plot.

When Sean Arthur (Channing Tatum),an unmotivated young man who hustles counterfeit merchandise in New York City, meets seasoned street-fighting coach Harvey Boarden (Terrence Howard) by chance, his whole life changes. Sean’s fights are dangerous, but he sets out to win the prize money at stake and the respect of those around him.

When I first saw this film I was saying “Oh god they decided to rip off The Karate Kid and put it along with Never Back Down”, but when I actually watched the film I was a little surprised.

The fights of this movie are mainly the strong point of the film. The scenes are heavily stylized and aren’t as great until you realize they have a certain life or death consequence to actually winning them, is when you start to get into them. They are filmed very realistically of how you would feel in a fight and you can just feel the excitement with these numerous fight scenes.

The fights also feel genuine, cause it shows that in the middle of a fight when you do get hit, it actually does hurt and it’s not something you just shrug off and get right back up of. There is a sense of realism within these fights and it makes the movie a whole lot of a better ride.

The only problem that when these fight scenes aren’t occurring, there isn’t much really going on. The plot starts to meander and go between two stories of Tatum and his love for a waitress, his personal struggles with his father, and his relationship with Terence Howard. I felt like there were way too many scenes of this and it just became way too boring.

Surprisingly the strong point of this film lies within it’s charming performance from Channing Tatum. He show’s that he actually can act and carry a movie with the type of star-quality that many actors do have in big-time Hollywood. Terence Howard also turns in a very different performance, that was good but i couldn’t really tell what his intentions were at times throughout the movie, and he didn’t seem all that too interesting as he could’ve been.

Consensus: Fighting has a very charming performance from Tatum, and features some stylized excited fight sequences. But the film starts to become a little too boring when it’s plot starts to unravel.

5.5/10=Rentall!!!

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

I actually like Shakespeare now because of this film.

What if a penniless William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) fell in love with a noblewoman (Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow) while struggling to write a comedy with the unlikely title “Romeo and Ethel the Sea Pirate’s Daughter?” Might the emotional turmoil inspire him to recraft the play into a tragedy with a more familiar-sounding name?

I mostly heard of this film before, because at the 1998 Oscars it beat out one of my favorite movies of all-time, Saving Private Ryan, for a the Best Picture Oscar. I was ready to see this film and tear it apart because I thought it was bogus that this ended up winning. But now that I’ve seen this I don’t know who deserved to win.

This is a wonderful film in all ways possible. Director John Madden really does create this vibrant fun new world filled with love literature, and most of all Shakespeare. Most of the characters and the events that happen are mostly fictional, but Madden does such a great job at showing how it all comes together at the end, and you have a great blend of mixing fiction with reality.

The most props of this film have to go to the screenplay. Throughout the whole film, I was so taken away by the wit of all these jokes and I liked how the olde english language was there but still made for the “modern” ear to understand. Though there is a lot of seriousness I felt there was also a lot of wonderful comedy that really did brighten up the tone and make this film a lot more enjoyable.

The most beautiful thing about this film really does come from the romance between Viola and Shakespeare which is really what the film is centered on. It feels and looks real, as you can see what really happens to a person when they fall in love and where the inspiration of it lies within Shakespeare’s work.

Gwyneth Paltrow turns in a magnificent Oscar-winning performance as Viola, as she shows a lot of depth of what seemed like a one-note character, and really does stay on top with the rest of these characters on screen. The whole cast does a great job but I feel like the one that really does the best job and doesn’t get any credit for it is Joseph Fiennes. If there is anyone in the world I wanted to meet it was Shakespeare, and Fiennes plays this person we already know and allow him to have more excitement and boldness added to his character, so that we cheer and love him even more.

The only problem I had with this film was very minor and that it didn’t feature much of the play itself and focused more on the romance. I wanted to know more of what happened behind the scenes of one of the most famous plays of all-time, and I didn’t get that much of it.

Consensus: One of the most delightfully charming romantic comedies of all time. With a clever script, wonderful acting, and perfect direction, Shakespeare In Love hits the spot on every level.

9.5/10=Full Priceee!!!

Up (2009)

An old geezer takes flight.

After a lifetime of dreaming of traveling the world, 78-year-old homebody Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is lured into an unbelievable adventure, thanks in part to the persistence of Russell, an 8-year-old Wilderness Explorer (Jordan Nagai). Together, the unlikely pair embarks on a thrilling odyssey full of jungle beasts and rough terrain.

This is Pixar’s first hit at a 3-D film and might as well be their best work to date. With Up they dive into a world vivid and alive, rich in detail, and somehow despite the obvious lack of realism, completely authentic.

Pixar’s one great thing about their films is that they can create this mashing of heart and humor in one film to make it work, but I think this is one of their best work combining the two. In the beginning of the film we get a montage of Carl and his wife together throughout the years of their marriage, is some of the best animation in a film to date. It’s gut-wrenching, and true showing all the high’s and the low’s of marriage.

Up is actually one of those really special films that when it comes out you must see. It’s a very timeless film tat doesn’t act like many other Pixar films. It doesn’t have those jokes that are more for the adults and go right over the children head, there all for everyone in the crowd to understand.

Never in my life have I come closer to crying at a Pixar film in my life. Up really deals with some tough and heart-wrenching themes, such as love, death, and most all life in general. There are some scenes that just bring out a huge batch of emotion from inside of you out into this movie, and it was all worth it, cause it really does mean something when you cry watching this film.

Ed Asner voices Carl, and if there is anybody that can do the voice of an old grumpy man it’s him, because he does an amazing job right here. Also the voice of the little kid was also very good, along with the talking doug ,Dug, who every time talked made me laugh every time. Christopher Plummer also comes out of nowhere and does a great voice over playing the villain.

Though Up was sad and serious it still has some comedy that stays with you throughout the film and is well-worth it. Also, there is a message that really means something that is saying that you did accomplish something in life and life is an adventure.

Consensus: Up is exciting, heart-felt, and also hilarious. This is one of more Pixar’s most serious work to date, but has a great message and brings out the best within you.

10/10=Fulll Priceee!!!

Life (1999)

Finally these two all-stars meet up but in a jail.

It’s 1932; Ray (Eddie Murphy) is a small-time hustler, and Claude Banks (Martin Lawrence) is a bank teller with a taste for gambling. When Ray picks Claude’s pocket to pay off a debt, the two men are framed and land in the same jail for 60 years; trouble is, they can’t stand each other! Stuck in a work camp, they hope to be proved innocent someday — if they don’t kill each other in the meantime.

I first heard about this film and was interested in seeing it cause it had my two favorite African-American comedians finally together in a movie. I was just expecting on-going laughs from these great actors, and although I got that the story of this film was a lot more than I was even thinking about.

However, this movie has an inherent sadness to it. These two men have their dreams crushed and are trapped in prison their entire lives. And yet they always remain hopeful about getting out and starting their lives. It creates a weird balance in the movie between the comic and the tragic.

Life started to lose me cause I think the way the whole film acted around it’s setting didn’t seem like the place for comedic effect. The Louisiana prison they are sentenced to, the future there isn’t so bright and many moments are very serious but aren’t taken very seriously, and that’s what kind of threw me off this film. I think this story could’ve really worked if it was used in a 1999 prison instead a 1930’s one.

I liked the comedy though even without the serious parts. I felt like the comedy does get a little over-the-top, but overall succeeds in making you laugh. I enjoyed how the jokes weren’t really centered towards racism and crime jokes and they stood up between mature and sometimes immature.

Lawrence and Murphy really do shine in this film however. I hear that they didn’t really like their Director Ted Demme, but he must have done something to them cause they give out great little performances here. This is very different from a lot of their other work, because it has more of a serious side to it, but they do take the ball and run with this film every scene they get. There are also little supporting characters in this film that are good that feature Bernie Mac (R.I.P), Anthony Anderson, and if you don’t blink you can catch Ned Beatty.

Consensus: Life is set-up in a very strange way, but features great performances from Lawrence and Murphy, and a great life lesson on love and friendship.

7/10=Rentalll!!!

Couples Retreat (2009)

All in the title.

Desperate to save their marriage, one couple convinces three other couples to go in on a group rate price for an island retreat designed for troubled unions. But the “mandatory therapy” brews up nothing but trouble for everyone. Vince Vaughn, Jon Favreau, Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Kristin Davis and Faizon Love star in this comedy penned by Favreau.

The movie tries to work really hard as being a date movie like Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Sleepless in Seattle, but it doesn’t give any answers to how these couples can react to their problems they face as a couple.

The script is written by Swingers stars Faverau and Vaughn, and you can actually see some really good interplay between them two really does shine through on this script. This movie has it’s moments, and some parts that don’t seem funny actually end up being funnier than you expected.

Though the script was good it did feel a little lazy and the jokes really got repetitive and annoying. There were countless amounts of dirty sex jokes that we’re not only meaningless to the plot at hand but overall just not funny and stupid. The jokes also really do start out as really funny, but then they really over due and just have the jokes go on and on, till where it just becomes tiring and you want a new scene. The perverted muscle dude scene got out of hand and although I laughed for awhile I felt like they were just finding any sex position to role play with.

I liked the good cast with some great stars, but most of them didn’t create laughs for me like I thought they would. It was funny seeing Vince Vaughn as being the responsible father figure, but he does actually give some really comedy even though he doesn’t play himself. Along with Faverau who once again is acting like a fool. Though I was confused of why Jason Bateman was used so wrong. He’s one of the more funnier men in Hollywood, but he just doesn’t have any funny material to work with here and comes off as very misused.

Consensus: Though with it’s moments, Couple Retreat seems very lazy, and not very funny nor very providing on relationships and couples.

4/10=SomeOleBullShiittt!!!

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

Sean Connery trying to be a Russian, nothing else is better than that.

When a Soviet nuclear sub headed toward American waters drops off U.S.scanners, the Yanks scramble to take defensive steps. But CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) convinces the brass that the sub’s commander (Sean Connery) has something other than a first strike in mind.

Now getting ready to watch this movie I was all hyped up. I love Sean Connery in any movie, and it actually looked like a reasonably slick thriller with little tweaks of action. Too bad that wasn’t what happened at all.

The film I guess you could call it a thriller, that’s if what your definition of thriller is. If your definition is a movie that has little or no action in the middle and suddenly picks up speed bu the end, with the other 95% of the film all just useless talking, then yeah this is a thriller.

Other than the talking about God knows what with these characters nothing really happens. I felt myself zoning out plenty of times and just bored all together. I mean I know sound pretty stingy but this film just didn’t hold my attention. They play this score music that tries to get you all in suspense when really there was no suspense to begin with, and its just put at random times of the movie.

The acting in this movie is actually the one thing that makes it watchable. Sean Connery as usual does a great job in this film and it seems like he really does try his hardest with this film and actually make a run with it. Alec Baldwin does a good job to and has more effective scenes than Connery which kind of threw me off, but they were still good nonetheless.

By the end of the film there is some CGI that comes into play and I could not help but just laugh at how pitiful it really looked. I thought I was playing a video game or something when that crap came up.

Consensus: Though it has good performances, The Hunt For Red October doesn’t really have much going on and tries to act like a suspenseful thriller when it’s neither.

3/10=SomeOleBullShiiittt!!

Paranormal Activity (2009)

Don’t go to sleep!

The movie centers on a young couple, Katie and Micah, who are haunted by a supernatural presence in their home. The movie is presented through the camera set up by the couple to capture the paranormal activity.

Now with any mockumentary horror film, right from the get go you know there’s going to be contrasts to The Blair Witch Project, and I can ultimately see why. The atmosphere is creepy, no script with very unknown actors, films the same way, and no soundtrack what so ever. However, I found this even freakier than Blair Witch, which really is one of my favorite horror films of all-time.

The film starts out really all nice and happy, and although there’s little thumps here and there it’s really nothing serious. But then when things start to pick up, it starts getting shit crazyyy!!!

First of all, the real reason why Paranormal works is because the special effects look so real. I have no clue how they did some of these scenes but almost every scene feels and just looks so legit, that it actually feels like your watching a documentary happen, right in front of your eyes.

Secondly, the acting in this film is top-notched probably cause all the film is just ad-libbing but the two stars Micah and Katie are actually a very believable couple, and when they are freaked they look and sound freaked out it’s not this usual scream fest to get a cheap scare. Also believe it or not in this hugely suspenseful scary movie, there is some comedy from Micah and his little one-liners that are more clever than most think.

Lastly, the real reason to see this film would definably have to be is seeing it in the theaters. This is what real cinema is all about. I was packed with my sister in a sold-out crowd in an IMAX theater, and as soon as the lights went out you know it was going down. I was really freaked out but the whole crowd was even more freaked out with me so I didn’t really feel alone. But if you do go and see this film, hurry up and look for it to the closest theater near you cause I can assure you it’s the full crowd experience which is just amazing.

Though I really did like this film it did have it’s problems. I really liked Micah in this film but I though the decisions in this film were so dumb that it really just made me yell “THE HOUSE IS CRAZYYYY GETT OUTTT!!!”. He starts insulting and leading on the demon throughout the whole film and while your sitting there watching your wondering if this guy want’s to die. Also, there are many points in this film where I would just be out of that house right away no matter what.

I think the other thing that Blair Witch really had going for itself that we all kind of thought that the whole film was actually real. When I went into this film I know it wasn’t real so that kind of brought down the realistic factor for me, but ultimately that’s probably not even much of a bad thing.

The whole film basically just leads up all the way to the end of the film, and when the ending happens your flipping out the whole time. I flipped, my sister flipped, every one in that theater must have flipped, cause when the ending is all said and done with you will be so effected by this movie.

Consensus: With a low-budget look and realistic effects, Paranormal Activity is one of those mockumentaries that will make you feel like everything you are seeing is real, and all the scares you get are absolutely worth it.

9/10=Full Priceee!!

Midnight Express (1978)

Turks are so evil.

A young American Billy Hayes (Brad Davis) is arrested in Turkey for smuggling hashish and then is sentenced to unreasonable time in a hellish Turkish prison, where he begins to self-destruct, until he musters the courage to plan his escape.

This film was based on the book from the real Billy Hayes, and it shows just how crazy you can really get in jail, and how much you really hate those damn security officers.

When I saw this film I wasn’t expecting anything great or remarkably, but that is totally a different response than what I was going into. The film is really brutal for all those squeamish people out there. Some will say it was too outlandish or brutal, I say the more violence the better. This got me to really understand how vicious it really was in the Turkish jail.

I was kind of on the fence with one factor however. I liked how the film made the Turks the ultimate bad guys that you just want to kill yourselves, but I fell like they were stereotypically horribly portrayed here. They seem so evil, so arrogant, and so very cartoon in the way they act that’s it’s very hard to believe that they are actually real.

In the middle of the film there turns out to be a little romance between Hayes and another prisoner, and although I’m not homophobic, I just didn’t feel like it mattered at all. It happens for a scene or two and then it’s gone, and Hayes soon becomes straight once again.

This screenplay was written by one of my favorites Oliver Stone and it really does feel like what you see and hear is the harsh reality of prison. The way the violence was depicted and the way these inmates interacted with one another it all felt real, and made me cheer for these prisoners as the story went on.

Brad Davis really does a great job here as basically throughout the whole film it all relies on him to carry this film, and he does and gives one of the most powerful performances in a prison film to date. John Hurt is also in this and does very well with the short amount of time he has on screen. The only problem I had with these characters was there wasn’t much of character building on these prisoners. I didn’t feel like I knew them quite well, and I felt like they didn’t know each other well as well.

Consensus: Midnight Express gives a very brutal but powerful look at a Turkish prison, but falls a little too overboard when it shows the Turks as just simply evil people.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Year One (2009)

If Jack Black and Micheal Cera were my ancestors, I would probably be insane.

Banished from their primitive village after the tribe elders deem them too lazy, Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera) leave everything they’ve ever known behind and embark upon an adventure-filled journey through the ancient world.

This is pretty much a remake of History of The World: Part 1, where at least that movie showed it was a bunch of skits, this film tries to weave a story together and ultimately just fails. The story tries to be set around all these biblical figures such as Cain and Abel, or Abraham, and they just come off as dumb and not really making any sense.

Year One is mostly killed from it’s various jokes that seem a little bit too dated. The sex jokes become so obvious and they seem so familiar that I can’t just help to think where have I heard these jokes before. There are parts in this film that just seem destined to be comedic gold for the cast, but then they just end up not turning out the way they could’ve. The film goes from one scene to another acting like the last one didn’t happen, and you just totally forget as well.

The thing that was actually pretty funny about this film was it’s comedy about the Bible, and the Christian faith, that just seemed a little too smart for a PG-13 film. There are many parodies on Biblical history that do sometimes work, but other times seem like it’s just trying too hard to be funny and just ends up being confusing.

Harold Ramis really has got me bummed out here. I really do like a lot of his other films such as Groundhog Day and Caddyshack, but he just doesn’t seem himself at all this movie. His direction is very bad and doesn’t seem inspired at all, and the production values just seem so cheap. I honestly felt like they just filmed this whole movie in the same piece of land throughout the whole filming process.

The one thing about this film that seems to shine is it’s cast. Jack Black and Micheal Cera basically play the same characters they always do in every film and try their hardest with this poor script, but don’t come up very well in the end. The little supporting characters in this film make this good with stars such as Bill Hader, Oliver Platt, and Hank Azaria, they look like their having fun it just doesn’t inspire us to have fun with this movie.

Consensus: Year One has the right factors going for them, but looks cheaply made, is poorly directed, and doesn’t feature many laughs to complete this star-studded cast.

3.5/10=SomeOleBullShittt!!!

An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (1998)

Somebody needs to burn this film.

In this satire skewering Hollywood movie making, Eric Idle stars as a film editor who gets a shot at directing a big-budget film (starring Sylvester Stallone and Whoopi Goldberg, no less) but is foiled by his producer (Ryan O’Neal). The premise builds on the age-old showbiz tradition of directors pulling their names from projects and replacing them with “Alan Smithee” credits to show that too many cooks have spoiled the cinematic broth.

OK, so now that the movie is finished with let me just start by saying this is a horrible film. I heard that this film was basically called “the worst film of all-time”, and liked swooped seven awards at The Golden Raspberry’s, and I wanted to give it a shot and actually see for myself. Now I wish I never made that decision.

Basically this film has a Mockumentary feel to it, like The Office or This Is Spinal Tap…., but this film takes that and moves it completely nowhere we expected. The film had little scenes that were just interviews that seemed to talk about the same crap after all this time. They were either talking about the director or the movie, or they were showing scenes that had nothing to do with the story at hand.

The worst thing about this film that really just made me want to kill something was it’s annoying on-going jokes about bigger and better stars. I understand a little pun joke here and there but once you do the same joke in a different format then I start to get really annoyed. The jokes labeled around stars such as Hugh Grant, OJ Simpson, and others I can’t remember cause there were so many.

I hated how this film tried to be funny but also insightful in a way, and does neither. The film tries showing how people in the film industry react with one another and really it just doesn’t play out to where we get what is the message behind it all.

Maybe the only the only thing saving this movie is it’s lead performance from Ryan O’Neal. Out of this whole film he is the only good thing as he is so condescending and arrogant that he actually feels like a real person that you just hate. There are little cameos in this film that are just meaningful and make no addition to the story other than just having another big name for the card.

Consensus: Irony has never been placed so wisely. This film should’ve been burned right from the moment it was conceived. The comedy is so obvious that it’s just dumb, and there is absolute no insight about Hollywood that we haven’t seen before.

1/10=SomeOleBullShiiittt!!!!

Unforgiven (1992)

Clint Eastwood doing what he does best.

Retired gunslinger William Munny (Clint Eastwood) reluctantly takes one last job — and even more reluctantly accepts a boastful youth (Jaimz Woolvett) as a partner. Together, they learn how easily complicated truths are distorted into simplistic myths about the Old West. Richard Harris, Morgan Freeman, and Gene Hackman also star.

If you were to stumble upon any known spaghetti-western film of the 60’s and 70’s you were probably going to see the face of Clint Eastwood, who’s violent and quotable protagonists have made him a huge pop cultural icon. So if you liked any of those films you may like this one.

The one thing about Unforgiven that you have to notice is that it’s very different from many other of the huge Westerns. This film instead being all about the action and violence that come within the story, it’s more about the story at hand. It shows these characters as actually more than just one-dimensional characters, and shows their feelings and how real they seem to be.

A lot of the stereotypes that are in many Westerns are basically thrown right out the window in this film. There are a lot of meaningful discussions on life, love, death, and most of all murder, and how they affect each and every one of these characters.

Though I really liked this film it did have it’s problems. Though I liked the performances from these actors I felt like some of these side characters weren’t really needed and just felt like they were put in to put in big names for a main card. Another thing that really does beat this film is that it really doesn’t add any suspense to the last 20 minutes of the film. The film really doesn’t all lead up to it’s final minutes which would’ve created those last couple of minutes to be really good.

Clint Eastwood, who also directs, does a great job in this film, and shows one of his better performances. He shows us this two-dimensional character that does seem real, and has feelings unlike may of his others. Though I felt like he was too silent, he still does a great job with adding emotion to a character that sometimes seems like he has none. Gene Hackman, also brings in an Oscar-winning performance, as he plays the hated sheriff of the town and creates a character that we just hate and want dead right away.

Consensus: With a couple of misfires, Unforgiven still makes a wonderful Western film, that has more story, and better acting than your normal Western. This is certainly my favorite Western of all-time, and shows that Clint Eastwood surely can make masterpieces.

9/10=Full Price!!!

Running on Empty (1988)

Was not expecting what I got.

After they bomb a napalm plant during the Vietnam War, Arthur and Annie Pope (Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti) are fugitives, never able to settle down in one place for too long. Years later, their son (River Phoenix) falls in love with a young woman (Martha Plimpton) and must decide whether to keep running with his family or stay put and risk never seeing them again.

Now I know what your probably saying is that yeah yeah it looks like another one of those family on the run until boy falls in love story, well yeah your right but it so much better than what you first think about it.

The whole film is based on this family trying to run away from its past, but it all somehow ends up coming after them. Although you will probably think that many of the scenes would be as cheesy as a Lifetime movie of the week it actually succeeds a lot more with it’s scenes. There are probably about 4 or 5 just heart drenching scenes that made me feel emotions that I haven’t felt towards a film in years. However, don’t get yourself wrong this is not a total tear-jerker is anything there are a lot of scenes that have somewhat little bits of humor, that really does pay off for this film.

Most of the credit should definitely go to the screenplay writer Naomi Foner, who seems like she has a lot on her plate, but actually does do a very good job with it. Many of the overused cliche lines in any film that has strong emotion are simply thrown away and put in with new twists and sometimes even more inventive ways to deliver a line.

River Pheonix is the real reason why to see this film. I first saw him first in Stand By Me, and now as I grow older I realize just how truly great of an actor he was and always will be, and without this film he wouldn’t have been known by how he is now. He shows a great performance that isn’t so much of a supporting act as a story that the film is mostly based on. Also, Christine Lahti has a couple of really good scenes especially the one with her father where she shows she really can act. Judd Hirsh is a good actor I just didn’t feel like he belonged in this film and was miscast. He looked a little too old, and sort of over did the witty hippie look.

The one thing I liked about it the most that really kept me glued on was the way this family interacted with each other. The acting is good, but the way they interact with each other actually made me feel like I was watching a home documentary. They felt like a real family that just had problems and throughout the whole film they were instantly believable.

Consensus: Running On Empty, is a beautiful portrait of a family that tries to escape it’s past with very fresh dialogue, phenomenal acting from Pheonix, and some of the most tear-jerking scenes of all time.

9.5/10=Full Priceee!!!

88 Minutes (2007)

What were you thinking Al Pacino?!?!?!

Jack Gramm (Al Pacino)– a college professor and occasional forensic psychologist for the FBI– finds himself in a race against time when he receives a mysterious phone call telling him he has exactly 88 minutes left to live. Can he track down his would-be killer before the clock runs out?

About 15 minutes into this piece of junk I literally wanted to turn away, and spend a better time of 88 minutes counting to 5,208. As this film started to continue on I actually wondered to myself could this be Al Pacino’s worst film? Then the answer came to me, and it was a HELL YES!!!

There are so many problems with this film that it’s actually hard to say them all in one bite. The whole film is just so outlandishly confusing, and half of the times while I was watching this I was really confused of what was actually going on. Either that or I just wasn’t interested enough.

The film is called 88 Minutes, and to be truly honest it should’ve been that long cause although it was about 1 hour and 48 minutes it felt like a 3 hour film, and at times I really didn’t have a clue where they were trying to get at with this movie. It’s slow as snail pace never really picks up and isn’t very exciting for a thriller, and half of the time I even forgot how much longer Pacino had to live. Instead of actually looking for the person that tries to kill him, Pacino’s character is too busy having feelings about a dozen old flames, talking about a previous case, and just way too busy answering his phone for dumb crap that have nothing to do with his life.

Al Pacino does try his hardest despite this lousy script, but he still fails in so many ways. He just doesn’t feel right in this movie at all. If I had about 88 minutes to live, I think I would be a little more frantic then just going around and dropping dumb lines like, “What the hell!!!”, or “Who is this”, every time I get a call. Pacino not very convincing in his role although I will at least give him props for trying.

This film was advertised as a huge action-packed thriller, and it wasn’t that one bit. The film tried to keep me on the edge of my seat and not once was I on the edge of my seat, and if I was it was to go to the bathroom and take time from watching this piece of crap.

Consensus: 88 Minutes tries to act like a suspense thriller, that features no suspense, confusion throughout, and just not a very convincing from Al Pacino. Surely one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and one of Pacino’s worst.

0/10=STAY AWAY!!!!!!

Say Anything (1989)

Very first Gen-X romantic comedy.

A budding romance between noble under achiever Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) and high school valedictorian Diane Court (Ione Skye) is threatened when Diane’s overly possessive, disapproving father (John Mahoney) interferes with their relationship. With a prized scholarship to study abroad hanging in the balance, Diane must find a way to make both men happy.

The one thing that I first realized about this film was that the whole love part of the film didn’t feel exploited or shown in any wrong way.

The film was written and directed by Cameron Crowe, who also made one of my other favorite high school comedy films, Fast Times At Ridgemont High. Crowe shows us with his screenplay that he knows how young people talk, interact, and even how their moods change from time to time. Crowe also shows the randomness of life, with the uprising things that happen in life when you have fallen in love.

The one thing that really touched me about this film was it’s sense of realism. It all seemed so real with it’s underlying messages about the future, and the little father-daughter relationship. All of it felt so real and not so much of as it was a really dumb film.

Unfortunately for me, this film flopped like a dead fish. It tripped over its own heels, alternately over-dramatic and sappy love story. One minute were on the edge of our seats with her father under investigation, the next minute Lloyds sobbing over her in the rain. Sometimes I felt like the film moved away from it’s comedy element and just stayed a little too much on the romantic element.

I do have to give a lot of props to John Cusack who is so good at playing that lovable loser that we all know and love him for. He makes this character a lot more likable because of his desperate attempts to have this girl like him, and also his little insight on how he interacts with his family. I also enjoyed John Mahoney and thought he gave a very good portrayal of a father trying to come to terms with his own life and his daughter’s life.

Consensus: One of the best Generation X films. Though it’s not perfect it shows a great realistic look on love with a fresh screenplay and a very likable performance from Cusack, Say Anything is one of the best modern romantic comedies in a long time.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!!

Awake (2007)

Could this crap actually happen?

While undergoing a heart transplant, Clay (Hayden Christensen) experiences “anesthetic awareness,” a condition that allows him to see and feel everything that’s happening to him but leaves him paralyzed and unable to do anything about it. From his unique and painful vantage point, Clay learns troubling truths about his young wife (Jessica Alba) as she struggles with her own demons.

When I actually watched this film I was expecting to be laughing my ass off at some of the cheesiest moments in cinema ever, but I was very surprised and ultimately absorbed.

First, I’m going to start on the bad stuff. Now I’m no doctor and don’t really care or understand about the body and health and everything like that, but this film is one of the biggest inaccuracies about health there has ever been. There a lot of improper uses of anesthetic procedures in this that just made me turn my head and wonder.

The premise is actually very interesting and original, but after awhile it starts to turn into a murder mystery, then out of nowhere it turns out that Hayden Christensen has an out of body experience like Swayze from Ghost. This is where this movie takes the turn for the worst and it starts to be just a normal clue-found murder mystery. Also, in many of these mind-bending psychological films there are usually very deep and touching messages, by the end. However, in Awake there isn’t really a message other than being rich is pretty cool.

I felt myself very attached to this film by the end however. I realized to myself that this is strictly a suspense and not supposed to be all that accurate. There are a lot of really interesting twist and turns that actually make this film less dumb and more interesting.

Hayden Christiensen actually as bad as he is as an actor, does a pretty ok job in this but he could’ve done a lot better. I feel like a lot of his moments were forced and not emotional enough to create a very believable character. The supporting cast does well by the end and actually do good jobs mostly Lena Olin, who plays the mother, who creates a character filled with grief of a past that she is ashamed of, and she creates a character by the end we sympathize with.

Consensus: I feel like this film could’ve been a whole lot better than it actually was, but features some great suspense to a film that just doesn’t have the message that could’ve saved this film.

5/10=Rentall!!!

Bulworth (1998)

I don’t like it but Warren Beatty is starting to grow on me here.

California Sen. Jay Bulworth (Warren Beatty), reduced by years of compromise and scheming, hires a hit man to put him out of his misery. Kicking off an election campaign with nothing to lose, Bulworth lets his mouth get his ass in hot water.

Now for me I like a lot of satirical films, such as Natural Born Killers and also This Is Spinal Tap.., but I never really found the politician satirical films to be that interesting or funny. I always felt like they were just trying to imitate real-life figures in politics and make a different story, but this one is very different and I actually enjoyed it.

This movie is passed off as a comedy, but I think more importantly it says what we wish a lot of politicians would say all the time, which is the truth. Granted this movie is only one opinion, but the talk about race and more importantly class, is right on if you listen to what he actually says, part of it will either make you sick or really stop to make you think. The message that lies within the film is heartfelt and actually shows us a lot of true elements to what we want for our country but in a hugely melo-dramatic way, but with a really strong sense of comedy.

The comedy in this film never really gets old, and I actually found myself laughing at a lot of what Beatty said but also a lot of people around him were saying. The racist slang’s that Beatty uses are hilarious to listen too but also very true in what he says half of the time, and what shows to be the strength is it’s screenplay.

I felt like some parts in this film were not needed at all. The love story between Halle Berry and Beatty was pretty lame, and not needed, and put in just for the sake of having a love story. Also by the end of the film I felt it got a little too predictable. There is a little bit of symbolism that runs throughout the film that when it first came up basically made me know what was going to happen for the rest of the film.

Beatty, though as much as I try to dislike him, I just can’t help but love him in this film. This is basically his film as he is director, main actor, producer, and also co-writer. He does a very good job with all but ultimately succeeds in his acting. This isn’t the normal woman charmer dick like Beatty we have seen before he actually plays a different character than all of his other films, and breaks down barriers that some thought could never be broken. It breaks down and so does his performance and it really does show he can act in different roles and play different people, and not the same guy all the time.

Consensus: Bulworth is a little predictable by the end, but Warren Beatty does a great job at keeping this movie hilarious but also very true in it’s message about race in politics, without ever losing it’s charm.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Great Balls of Fire (1989)

Wow, Jerry Lee Lewis is a creep.

This rockin’ biopic depicts the meteoric rise of rock and roll’s most daring living legend, Jerry Lee Lewis (Dennis Quaid). Concentrating on the years from 1956 to 1959, the film features the songs and escapades that catapulted Lewis to the top of the charts, as well as his controversial third marriage to his 13-year-old cousin, Myra (Winona Ryder), which almost destroyed his career.

Much like all rock biopics, the artists eventual rise-and-fall is documented in such a soap opera way. Look at La Bamba or The Doors, you will see these stories eventually all end up the same.

The film is one of the more exciting rock biopics. It shows the fun side of rock-and-roll rather than it’s disadvantages. Much of the energy comes from it’s great upbeat soundtrack as all the songs were re-recorded by Jerry Lee himself, and add a great deal of excitement to this film. The editing that goes a long with the music, that influences many other films today, it shows the story developing as the music continues so it doesn’t become boring.

The only problem with the film was that I didn’t quite get inside of the person of Jerry Lee Lewis, instead I got the artist who the public could always see, not the man behind the scenes. Jerry Lee’s life had a lot more problems than just a little short period of time. His life was battled with a lot more violence, sex, drugs, and drinking than this film showed me, and I didn’t quite get to know Jerry Lee as well as I thought I could.

I think the story really does run out of steam by the end. When the film goes to his marriage between him and his cousin, the film has no where to go and comes up with a really dumb ending, which was trying to stay upbeat with the whole film itself but didn’t seem like it meant anything to the whole film.

Dennis Quaid really does shine here as Jerry Lee. He is cocky, but also very energetic and brings a lot to the table, and gives the look at Jerry Lee, and becomes a lot more convincing than I thought he was, but it surely is an understated performance.

Consensus: Jerry Lee Lewis’ life had a lot more than this film gave us, but it is highly energetic and features a great understated performance from Dennis Quiad.

5/10=Rentall!!!

Away We Go (2009)

Sam Mendes takes the indie road.

Away We Go is a film about a young couple who are expecting their first child. After learning that the child’s paternal grand parents are moving away, the couple decides they have no reason to remain in their rural town, and begin visiting family and friends across the United States and Canada to try to find the perfect place to raise their soon-to-be family. Along the way they learn vicariously through other couples what they should and shouldn’t do once they become parents.

Director Sam Mendes seems to always make films about the basics of the human relationships, just look at his other films like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road, but instead he takes a fresh and humorous take on relationships.

The one really great thing about this film is that it was really nice to see the couple already in love, and how they actually do understand each other, and really can communicate with one another. They take on their lives together as a team and you see how they comfort one another when things are looking their worst.

The film is more sweet than it is actually funny. The writing team consist of real life husband-and-wife team Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida, and you can tell these are how real couples talk and react to one another after knowing each other for so very long.

The only problem I had with this film is that it starts to get a little to indie for me. The soundtrack that consist of indie folk starts to get a little over-played as each song almost sounds the same, and the usual scruffy looking people staring into space. Also it seems to pose too much as a low-budget film, when really it wasn’t low budget and made for 21 million dollars. Also the quirky humor mixed in with a very melodramatic and convenient ending just seem to make this film a little bit too over indie.

The thing that really makes this film is it’s performances from the two leads. When you have a road film about a couple you really do need 2 strong performances from the leading stars and in this you get it. Maya Rudolph really does step up from her stints on SNL, and shows the depth she can have within a character in a drama. I was a little hesitant with John Krasinski because I thought he was going to be too much like Jim, from The Office, but he really does a great job and adds a lot of good humor to the film. Many of the side characters are all great in this film, and to point out one would be unfair cause each do great with their respectable parts.

Consensus: Though it get’s a little too indie, Away We Go is brutally honest, well-acted, and actually pretty funny, but overall shows a wonderful portrait of the real blessings and sometimes the real tragedies of parenthood.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!

Stand and Deliver (1988)

“How do I teach these kiiidddsss!!”

East L.A. math teacher Jaime Escalante (Edward James Olmos),who finds himself in a classroom of rebellious remedial-math students. He stuns fellow faculty members with his plans to teach AP Calculus,and even more when the mostly Hispanic teens (including Lou Diamond Phillips) overcome the odds and eventually go the distance.

This is one of those sleeper hits about the charismatic teacher who takes a class of slackers and un-slacks them, and makes them actually have meaning in life. However this one seems to have a new fresh taste.

What really stands out in Stand And Deliver is that the movie revolves around the teaching of mathematics, instead of history or some vaguely designed social studies lesson plan. Thus, viewers inclined to cynicism are spared the cheap allegorical device of having the lesson plans parallel the main plot’s dramatic conflicts.

The real good thing that is in this film is that both the teacher and the students are from the same ethnic group. It wasn’t one of those films where we had a white teacher trying to connect to a bunch of black students, instead they all understand each other and can avoid a lot of the racist colonial subtext.

The film did have a couple of misfires that were very crucial. I didn’t like how by the end of the film it really did start to leave out details that would’ve meant something. By the end of the film when they are suspected of cheating cause they all got the same answers wrong, to go right to the argument about racism. We don’t really understand how and why they got all the same ones wrong and are left in a lonely place. Many details that were just little sub plots also come into place, just like the teacher having a heart attack and his family, were not very needed and seemed as unimportant.

I really did like Edward James Olmos, as the teacher. He puts a new take on this story that we have all seen before and keeps us guessing of how we don’t even know how he will react. You can tell the anger lies within him and by the end of the film it comes out so perfectly. I also really did like Lou Diamond Phillips and thought he was very effective as the troubled but smart student, but I don’t think he was used very right. We never really got the sense of his anger that lied within him throughout the whole film. Instead we get him trying to really get these math problems done. If this film focused more on how he lived and reacted with the world I think this film would be way more compelling.

Consensus: Though it is a story you have seen before, Edward James Olmos’ effective performance puts a twist on the film and makes it a more compelling but very effective teacher-student drama.

7/10=Rentall!!

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Crazy times with Shakespeare.

Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson star as Benedick and Beatrice, two marriage-phobic rivals in Florence, Italy, in a lively plot involving complications, pranks and peerless wordplay. This must be Shakespeare! Hero (Kate Beckinsale) and Claudio (Robert Sean Leonard) try to hook up the two B’s despite tenacious resistance.

Personally I don’t really care that much for Shakespeare adaptations, and to be truly honest I find them to be very boring and bland, but not this one.

Branagh directs this film as well and shows that he can really direct a film, and well. He has such a love for these stories of all these characters, and it really does come out onto the screen. I also found this to be actually a lot more exuberant than other adaptations, and adding a lot more energy to bland comedies can really work, if given the right direction.

Much Ado doesn’t really ever have a upset face throughout, I found it a lot more cheerful than I would’ve expected. I don’t think you have to like Shakespeare a lot to really like this film, but if you are not familiar with the old English language than this may be a bit of a stretch.

The problems I had with this film was that it just wasn’t too compelling or attaching for me. Although I did like the comedy in this film, I didn’t really find myself laughing as much cause I just felt that Branagh’s way of directing was just to make this film as goofy as can be. Though the performances are good I just felt like these actors were just saying these words and I didn’t quite believe these characters as much as I thought I would.

Branagh creates a perfect ensemble, though some fall short from others. Branagh goes out on a limb casting stars that aren’t well known Shakespeareans, but they do well anyway. Emma Thompson and Branagh actually do have great chemistry in this film and it actually does feel real, probably because at this time they were married. But I really didn’t understand the casting of Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton. Reeves is cheesing it up as usual and doesn’t add anything to this film, other than cheap one-liners, and Keaton’s character I don’t think was even needed, and what did he actually do for this story anyway?

Consensus: Branagh’s great love for this story mixed with some great set pieces make Much Ado lovable, but just some of it seems to silly and not very interesting as a whole.

6.5/10=Rentalll!!!

The Missouri Breaks (1976)

What were these guys thinking!??

Laid-back rustler Tom Logan (Jack Nicholson) and his gang buy a ranch next to their new target: rich landowner Braxton (John McLiam). While Logan courts his neighbor’s daughter (Kathleen Lloyd), Braxton gets wind of the rustling plot and hires gunman Lee Clayton (Marlon Brando) to do the dirty work.

having two great legends in the big roles for a film, you know it just has to be good. However, in this case we do not have that at all.

The one huge problem with this film is that it tries to do so many things with itself and it just doesn’t work at all. It tries hard to be a quirky comedy at points, others it tires to be a romantic-heartfelt story, and then in all it tries to be a suspenseful action ride, all from the West. All of these different things that go on just don’t work and just add on to the flatness.

There are some scenes where it’s just all powered by dialogue and actually it is not interesting nor meaningful. I found these cowboys to be talking about random crap from the farm, to the things that inhabit the farm, or going into town. As you can see not very interesting stuff, and I actually found myself yawning a lot.

A lot of Westerns usually build up the story in order to eventually have a big action-packed climax. However, this film doesn’t feature any if no Western action sequences at all, and the climax I felt to be terribly anti-climactic, and ultimately unmeaning.

If you really can stand a 2 hour film of just sure boring then be ready for this one, cause it has a whole bunch of that. The whole film moves at a very slow pace with occasional step ups, but with 2 hours of a film that could’ve been put on the screen for about 1 hour, come on! After awhile I just couldn’t put up with that much and just started making fun of the film bit by bit.

The one thing that actually makes this film not as bad, is its two leading actors. Jack Nicholson does a good job at capturing his role, but the one who really blows this film out of the water is Marlon Brando. Brando plays one of the most over-the-top characters he has ever played, and actually brings a lot of enjoyment to this non enjoyable film. Brando ad-lib’s throughout the whole film and makes a lot of memorable quotes and actually makes this film better, as random as he is.

Consensus: With two leading stars of Nicholson and Brando, The Missouri Breaks fails at being an engaging , interesting Western film, and just becomes way too stale and too over-played.

3/10=SomeOleBullShiiittt!!!

Bottle Rocket (1996)

Wes Anderson start’s out, with the Wilson brothers.

After charismatic but naïve Dignan (Owen Wilson) persuades his pals Bob (Robert Musgrave) and Anthony (Luke Wilson) to rob a bookstore, the trio takes it on the lam. While holing up in a border-town motel, they bungle their way into a big heist orchestrated by a glib gangster (James Caan).

So to start it off I didn’t know what to think of this film at first. I love all Wes Anderson films, and I always put The Royal Tenenbaums as one of my favorite films, and I just wanted to see where Anderson got his start.

This film is basically a heist film, but not really because if you see Wes Anderson films you’ll see why, and how anti-serious his films can get. I felt like the film’s comedy sometimes bordered on sarcastic and dark but overall made some very serious situations funny.

Bottle Rocket has got a lot of Anderson’s charms and wit with the usual corny soundtrack, and very quirky scenes but nothing really connects. I didn’t feel myself connected to a lot of these characters and their situations. I liked Owen Wilson’s character but the central theme and message that lie within all of Anderson’s others doesn’t really come out here.

The film is incredibly talky throughout. In most films I like it when the characters talk and interact with one another, as I feel it sort of humanizes them. However, Bottle Rocket doesn’t really have much thought about it’s dialogue. A lot of stuff is given to Owen Wilson and it’s used pretty well, but these conversations aren’t very witty or important at all, and I didn’t find myself interested in them talking as much.

Bottle Rocket gets saved from it’s cast however. Owen Wilson does a great job at playing this kind-of slacker guy who doesn’t want to always stay home and do nothing, but go out and do stuff, only that stuff happens to robbing places. He creates a character that is not very likable but soon starts to win you over, as he continues to show more character in a lot his desperate situations. Luke Wilson does a very exceptional job at playing the recently crazy brother as well.

Consensus: Bottle Rocket isn’t very likable but features an impressive debut from Director Wes Anderson and the Wilson brothers.

5.5/10=Rentalll!!!

Short Cuts (1993)

A 3 hour and 9 minute film, that still needed more.

Robert Altman’s mosaic masterpiece, based on Raymond Carver’s short stories, presents several different characters — including a baker, a chauffeur, a helicopter pilot, a phone-sex provider, a pool cleaner and a jazz singer — whose stale lives intersect and are forever altered through simple twists of fate. This moving tale’s all-star cast includes Tim Robbins, Madeleine Stowe, Bruce Davison, Andie MacDowell, Jack Lemmon and Anne Archer.

The movie traces the actions of twenty-two principal characters, both in parallel and at occasional loose points of connection. The role of chance and luck is central to the film, and many of the stories concern death and infidelity.

Much of the stories are told about people who just have very strange but overall upsetting lives, and barely get through it day to day. A lot of these stories blend a great deal of humor and mix it with the depressing tone, but keep you interested due to this sharp skills.

Most of the credit of this film has to go to the amazing director Robert Altman, who really does show he can make some great film’s. He takes this three hour long story and still make it fresh and barely ever drag on. Altman really does have a love for many of these stories, and a lot of these strange characters and that comes out from his very impressive direction. He goes through each story like a 3 hour soap opera but never misses a beat in combining some strange moments and add a little flavor of realism.

As great as this film can be it did have a lot of problems that could’ve saved this film. With so many stories and a very long run time like this, you would think this movie would be a central message for some sort of idea. No, and if there was I didn’t catch it. I found the film’s stories to be powerful and mostly engaging but by the end of the film we don’t really see much resolved, and we don’t see what the main purpose of this film was, other than just a bunch of stories that end suddenly.

Many stories in this film are actually more interesting than others, and although I stated before didn’t drag too much, the less interesting ones were given the most attention. I think that Altman goes from one story to another but not a very notable way, because sometimes the stories are barely or at all connected.

The huge ensemble-cast is just simply amazing. There are a lot of big names in this film that show up, but actually do add something to this film, that is deserved. I can’t name notable one other than two that stand out in my mind. Tim Robbins plays a cop in this film an creates one of the most hated, self-conscience characters I have ever seen on film, and creates a perfect character. Also Julianne Moore has some good scenes although she is barely on and by the end of the film you soon start to know that she is destined for greatness.

Consensus: Some stories are more interesting than others, Short Cuts features some impressive directing, amazingly-acted ensemble, and some great stories to be told. The only problem is that an engaging film needs to have an engaging message, which this does not have.

8/10=Matinee!!

Lucky Number Slevin (2005)

Not seven, but Slevin.

Set in New York City, the plot focuses on the paths of Slevin Kelevra (Hartnett), Lindsey (Liu), two feuding crime lords known as The Boss (Freeman) and The Rabbi (Kingsley), and a mysterious hitman known as Mr. Goodkat (Willis).

One thing right from the get go of the film is that yu will notice it is a lot like Pulp Fiction. The way of story-telling, screenplay, even sometimes the way it looks, seems too much Tarantino’s masterpiece. However, it is definably not as good.

Basically the whole movie is a con, and it tries to make you, the viewer, understand the con that is going on. I felt a little too jerked around and felt that why should I care so much for the story if I don’t even know where half of the time it’s even going.

The film tries to work its way through acting as a thriller, but it didn’t quite seem that way. I felt like it was a blend of mystery and gangster genre, with a side bit of comedy. But I just didn’t feel like my needs were met as they were suddenly changed right in the middle of the film.

Slevin, has a screenplay that is pretty decent and actually turns out to be kind of witty. I enjoyed how the comedy wasn’t too bad, and it started out great at first but then soon started to drag, but was still fresh. Much of the dialogue is hard to understand since many of these characters seem like all they have are inside jokes and will actually take you a long time to comprehend who and what the joke was.

This film starts to really drag on and end it’s entertainment to me. I didn’t quite know who the good guys were and really didn’t know who to fall behind or anything of that, so I was kind of left scratching my head of who was good and who was bad.

Slevin features an ensemble cast that does actually do their best. Freeman and Kingsley do the best jobs and although their characters seem to be as stereotypes, they still try to work at it and actually put out some pretty good performances. Lucy Liu I felt was really annoying and sometimes changed her personality to really quirky and energetic then suddenly to serious and scared.

The ending to this film really does work out and saves this movie from a demise that could’ve been crucial. At the end all the little parts are explained and about everything comes full circle and it’s really cool to see all that plan out.

Consensus: Lucky Number Slevin tries to be a lot like Pulp Fiction, with it’s story-telling and witty screenplay but starts to fizzle out early but saves itself by the end.

5/10=Rentall!!!!

Miller’s Crossing (1990)

The place where it all goes down, in the forest.

Trusted adviser to 1920s Irish crime boss Lee O’Bannon, Tom Reagan’s loyalty is tested when he takes up with O’Bannon’s gal pal, Verna Bernbaum. Meanwhile,rivals Johnny Caspar and Eddie Dane threaten O’Bannon’s racket.

Miller’s Crossing is directed by the highly original Joel Cohen, and it’s pretty easy to tell, as there are many numerous look a likes in this film to countless others of The Coen Brothers.

In this film, there are many very good scenes that are just about being visually and emotionally captivating. Coen makes this film touch you but not with words or actions, but by the look of the film, and how you feel you’re in this torn-down 1920’s era of where gangsters and crime rule the town, and where everything is deceptive.

If you’re looking fora good mafia film then look no farther. Many stereotypes in mobster films don’t quite happen in here. We have always seen these tommy-guns blazing, but not with the kind of style this film gives us. The script is not like many other mafia films, as it is very realistic but also very challenging and complicated.

The reason it’s very complicating is because it starts off on the wrong foot talking about characters we do not know, and have no clue about. Probably about 45 minutes into the actual film is when we finally find out who all the players are. Many events in this film also happen, without us even knowing ourselves. I liked the little John Tuturro scene at first and felt that was good, but then it starts to over-play itself and just turned out to be a little too annoying.

The movie does have some pretty interesting scenes with some great violence and great visuals, but moves at a snail’s pace. There were way too many scenes that just featured these people talking, drinking, smoking, or anything else about gangsters. I felt like this film at points got boring, and does not do very well trying to pull it’s viewers in.

Miller’s Crossing features a lot of big names that are recognizable, but aren’t in this film as much as you would think. Gabriel Byrne does a very good job at playing this lead and doesn’t act tough throughout the whole movie, and actually does show some weaknesses within. Albert Finney, John Tuturro, and Marcia Gay Harden all are in this film and show up but are not used as well, and don?t seem to powerful for a film that bases it all on the power of a look and feel.

Consensus: Though not one of Coen’s best, Miller’s Crossing is a small mobster gem that is visually spectacular and features a real-life look at the world of the Mafia.

7/10=Rentall!!!

Rain Man (1988)

Rain Man that features no rain dance, I was very dissapointed!

Fast-talking yuppie Charlie Babbitt is forced to slow down when he meets a brother he never knew he had, an autistic savant named Raymond (Dustin Hoffman, in an Oscar-winning role) who’s spent most of his life in an institution. When their wealthy father dies, leaving everything to Raymond, Charlie takes his unusually gifted older brother on a life-changing cross-country odyssey that neither is likely to forget.

Rain Man is one of those films that just look OK but then out of nowhere becomes amazing. This certainly happened to me as I was expecting a OK film, when what I got was one of the most touching films I have ever seen.

The film starts out as a normal drama fest packed with a lot of strong drama dialogue but then out of nowhere turns into a road- film that ends up being a heart warming comedy.

Director Barry Levinson, makes a premise we have all seen before and change it into something totally new and fresh. His direction is impressive in that some scenes that are very serious actually turn out to be quite funny and without this the film would’ve been a total bore fest. I also think that Levinson’s screenplay works as not many of the lines are cliched and very witty and actually very quotable.

I did have some problems with Rain Man however. I didn’t like how this film focused a lot on Cruise’s character as I really didn’t like him and find him as appealing as Hoffman’s, and I felt this took away a lot of what could’ve came to this film. I also didn’t like the little side story of Cruise being all against his father. It was so your typical bad guy hates father motive that is way too over-used and I though really wasn’t need as many others.

The one thing to acknowledge in this film is that throughout Cruise is trying to change Hoffman, since he doesn’t like how he is weird and autistic, and by the end of the film Hoffman ends up changing Cruise. This film has a lot of reality that all the people you see are real, and nothing will change about them.

Hoffman gives one of the greatest performances of his career as Raymond, and shows he can be any character. Mostly to his deliverance of the lines, Hoffman makes this film watchable with his witty lines, and just overall his very believable look into a new person. I also liked how Hoffman didn’t act like a stereotypical autistic. He didn’t talk funny, he didn’t say weird stuff, he was just awkward and different and that’s what I like about this film. Tom Cruise believe it or not, actually does not get upstaged in this film. In every scene it seems like Hoffman and Cruise are just trying to one up each other with these two obviously different characters.

Consensus: Though you have seen it before, Rain Man is an impressive and witty look on family values, and features some strong messages with two very strong performances from Cruise and Hoffman.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Atonement (2007)

Love has never been so passionate, damn evil little sisters.

When 13-year-old Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) discovers a lustful letter and witnesses a sexual encounter between her older sister (Keira Knightley) and a servant’s son (James McAvoy), her confusion prompts her to finger the young man for a violent crime.

This film is based on the Ian McEwan novel, that some have said is unfilmable, and might as well be after this, because no other film we be able to top this. This film drips with so much prestige you soon forget it ever had it in the first place.

This film is one of the more beautiful ones that I have seen of all time. Many of the colors change in order to show how different their relationship is turning out to be, and just right through these colors you can just feel the emotion pouring right out of the screen. There are some scenes in this film that are just mesmerizing of how their filmed. The set-pieces were really good looking and actually did look like it was in the 30’s, and last but not least there is just one amazing scene at Dunkirk in WWII, and basically that whole one scene just completes the whole film.

If there were any problems with this film was that its pace changes countless times and seems a little too all over the place. I also felt that this film was one of those very cliched romantic films based on just the simple words “I love you” to convey a new feeling of love and passionate emotion. Some lines in this film are very predictable, and it just seemed like another love story.

At the Oscars, Atonement won for Best Score, out of their other 6 nominations and to be truly honest I have no clue of how and why. I mean the score is unique but I just found it to be annoying at times mixing in the clicks on the keyboard and heavy breathing to mix in with the score.

The film is brilliantly-told through many different points of views. At some scenes I didn’t quite understand what was happening and then when I found out it actually explained a lot.

Between James McAvoy and Keira Knightley I couldn’t tell if they were going out or not. They really did feel like an actual true couple in this film. McAvoy plays the young servant’s son with such authenticity and anger that he just comes off as a really strong and true character and Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances yet, and shows she can’t be out acted. The really young Saorise Ronan actually does a good job and you can just feel sympathy for her as she doesn’t actually know what’s going on and she does do the best to her ability.

The film really does work with it’s central message. I felt that the ending was very effective and true and shows just how great a story can be, with enough emotional strife to add along. It shows how one little white lie, can change lives forever.

Consensus: Atonement features strong performances, a powerfully emotional story, and some really lovely shots, but ultimately falls too short of greatness, due to little misfires.

8.5/10=Matinee!!

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Mel Brooks films never get old.

Mel Brooks’s take on Hollywood Westerns follows the tortured trail of freed slave Bart, who’s elected sheriff of the racist town of Rock Ridge. He must foil a land-grabbing governor (Brooks) with help from a washed-up, pot-smoking gunslinger (Gene Wilder).

Let me just start off to say that this is what comedies, I don’t care modern or old, comedy in general should be. Everything that has to do with this film, for some may seem too dumb, but for me was just way too funny.

The film is basically a parody of the western film genre. And it’s not one of those parodies where they basically just try to be like the other film, and make fun of it, no, this film is making fun of certain elements with adding in their own little touches as well.

The jokes in this film come in very fast, and sometimes the irony isn’t brought up in these jokes and you sort of have to think about the jokes. The comedy of this film goes from slapstick, to dialogue-humor, to absurd humor, and a little bit of lewd crude humor. Many jokes will just pass you by or you won’t get, or the jokes you will understand and make you laugh your ass off.

Blazing Saddles is actually pretty smart in it’s message with such a daring look at racism in Hollywood. The black protagonist is called the “n” word several times to his face,, but shakes it off as nothing has happened, and many of his lines are just so stereotypical and funny that you just forget the message, but soon realize this is all true.

The only problem I had with this film was that by the end of the film the comedy started to dry off a little bit and get kind of stale. Many humor in the beginning of this film was pretty straight laced comedy, then by the end it started getting dry and trying way too hard to get some laughs out.

Consensus: Blazing Saddles is a classic, that is funny in all ways, that is amazingly witty and can be watched over and over again.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Hustle & Flow (2005)

What Terrence Howard can do best other than acting, pimping.

DJay (Howard) is a pimp with aspirations of grandeur — he wants to make it as a rapper — but he soon discovers that fame isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Offering strong characters and notes of sweet romance amid the urban beats of its central plot.

The film reminds me so much of a similar film, called 8 Mile. The story of a nobody who wants to become an a rap-artist who just can’t make a break because of his personal issues, are in both films however, I would rather watch this one.

Director Craig Brewer steps away from a lot of the notable cliches about pimps, hoes, and drug dealers and really shows these characters in a new and enlightening but true way. These characters are not perfect and they do have problems with their lives. DJay hates being a pimp, and the hookers hate being call girls, and they all make mistakes, but they still learn from them.

Most people will be disgusted and taken away by the gritty look, but I think it creates a great and effective atmosphere. The way everything looks is so crummy, so torn-down, but yet so authentic in the way this little town in Memphis looks. The movie doesn’t try to overplay it’s setting and shows what type of atmosphere these people live with everyday.

Terrence Howard basically gives the best performance of his career right here. He is so good, considering I found him using the word “maine”, a little too redundant, but still very good, and he gives the strongest performance and highlights the struggles the type of person can deal with, in their own environment. Ludacris actually does show he can act with the little screen time he gets and shows some very impressive skills.

Though I’m not in love with rap music I felt without the music they had this film wouldn’t be what it is. As out of hand the songs are they are very memorable and actually add a lot of excitement to a film that did need it at some flat points.

The last 25 minutes of this film are just so perfect. Those minutes touch on so many subjects such as the rap culture, friendship, and most of all pride. This film shows a true conveying message that is perfectly executed.

The only problem that I had with this almost perfect film, was how these characters as messed up as they were never really had much of a resolution to their wrong-doings. All the sex that the hooker was having she was bound to get AIDS soon, and the baby in the story, what happened to the kid?

Consensus: Hustle & Flow is a very exciting take on the rap world that is gritty but insightful and produces an amazingly strong performance from Terence Howard.

9.5/10=Full Priceee!!!

Weekend at Bernie’s (1989)

What happens when you find out your boss is dead act, like he’s alive!

Co-workers Larry (Andrew McCarthy) and Richard (Jonathan Silverman) spending a weekend at the beach house of their boss, Bernie (Terry Kiser), who’s secretly planning to kill the duo because they’ve uncovered an accounting error at the company. But when the boys arrive, Bernie’s already been whacked, and hilarity ensues as Larry and Richard try to keep his death a secret so that they won’t be considered suspects.

Bernie’s has an actually good premise which could’ve turned out to be witty, instead just turns out to be a preposterously unfunny dark comedy.

The film’s comedy mostly derives from it’s slapstick that was used about 2,000 times. Jokes were either about somebody getting hurt on the head or either just jokes about how Bernie’s actually dead but the people are too dumb to notice. I mean honestly how could you not know the guy was dead, I mean yeah your drunk but it’s not like your blind. The guys not moving and is not even talking, so obviously he must be dead. Dumb people!

The film was stupid, but not stupid as in a funny way to laugh at the film funny, more of like it just got so annoying that I couldn’t wait till the Weekend was over. I mean I like dark comedies but there wasn’t even any dark jokes one bit, except that these guys were trying so hard to hide some dead guy.

The performances are not that good, and these actors are trying so hard to do their best with this god-awful script, but they just can’t produce anything funny. The one thing I found funny to look for, is when there is a dead body and its just sitting there with a bunch of dialogue, you’ll be able to soon tell when there is a chance when that actor breathes or blinks. I found myself more concentrated on that then the whole film at all.

The only good thing about this film that I will say is that I do give this film props for actually going out on a limb and trying to make a good of this film, but ultimately it just suffers way too much.

Consensus: Bernie’s is supposed to be a comedy that is not at all funny, and just relies toio much on slapstick and really dumb jokes.

1/10=SomeOleBullShiittt!!!

Bullets Over Broadway (1994)

I never knew that the mafia was attracted to Broadway so much.

The story follows a hack 1920s playwright (John Cusack) who uses a mobster to finance his newest play. When the gangster’s bodyguard (Chazz Palminteri) starts rewriting the play to make it more believable, he shows more talent than Cusack. The complications of the play come within it’s stars who also include Diane Wiest, Jim Broadbent, and Jennifer Tilly.

This is directed by one of my favorites, Woody Allen, and I thought this film was a whole lot more funnier than any other of his films. The film doesn’t break any new ground or give us a new spin on the way we watch film, but it’s very enjoyable nonetheless.

Allen writes one of his best scripts ever, when in this film he does know that it takes time to create these characters until we find out their funny. I liked how a lot of these antics from these characters were all just so funny. Not the kind of chuckle funny, but really big laugh out loud funny, and found this as a very interesting take on a not so inspired plot.

The film is very funny but it’s also very sly. You can read it as a comedy, but you can also sense that in a subtle way, Woody Allen is making some comments on his own roles as an artist. Is he the Cusack character that is earnest but lacking in emotional strife? Or the gangster who follows art with a sure conclusion of what’s really going on? It’s very fun to actually figure it out for yourself, and keeps you thinking about the statement.

The only problem I had with this film is that it seemed to much of a parody. I felt like it was a Woody Allen parody film on a late-period film. The jokes, stage direction, some of the characters, and even the killings. Though they were funny I still felt the parody sense of the film that lied within.

The performances are one of the most vibrant I have seen in a long time from any film. Cusack does a good job, as usual, but it’s really the witty side characters that are really good. Chazz Paliminteri does one of his best jobs in this film, and is used in the beginning as a side character, then one after another, is used more and more and he creates this wonderful character that you love and hate at the same time. Wiest is amazing in this film and totally steals the show with every scene, also with Jennifer Tilly turning in a surprising Oscar nominee performance.

Consensus: Not very inspired, Bullets Over Broadway features some eccentric performances, a hilarious script and a great message, which ultimately climaxes in one of Woody Allen’s best films.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!

Stay (2005)

I don’t think you could stay in any bit of sanity after watching this.

When a psychologist’s (Ewan McGregor) suicidal client starts making bizarre predictions that, to everyone’s mounting consternation, begin to come true. Now, the shrink must race against the clock to save everything he loves before it disappears forever.

The film has a very intriguing psychological twist which I do enjoy from a lot of films. Vanilla Sky and The Sixth Sense are great films that I love to think about in films, but this one doesn’t do it that right.

To start off with something good if you want to see this film do it for the visuals. They are stunning, and create a mood with the film, as the camera shifts everyone once in awhile as something just doesn’t seem right. The color green in this film is shown throughout the whole movie and is really cool to see the color put in all ways different ways throughout the film.

However, as stunning as the visuals were, I just felt like they were put in for no good reason. I felt as if they were put in at times just to be put in and be over the top and try and have us confused about a story that is already confusing as it is.

The film tries a little too hard to be good, creepy fun, but about half way through the film I found myself so uninterested with this story and these characters that I almost just fell asleep. I think that the story wouldn’t have been too confusing if the film wasn’t giving out a lot of misguided clues that didn’t really fit well with the story.

Director Marc Foster shows his true talents of not knowing how to make an effective script at all. The film’s lines in this film are so cheesy and cliched that I couldn’t help myself to laugh by how dumb these lines were being put in.

Though the screenplay is pretty crappy, Stay actually has some good acting. Ewan McGregor is very effective and shows that he can keep a story together even if he does have cheesy lines, and Naomi Watts, as much as she was barely in does a very acceptable job playing his once suicidal girlfriend. Though, Ryan Gosling I think gives the knockout performance as he is very taunting but very believable that this guy is so good at playing with this guy’s mind that you actually start to like him out of all the characters.

The ending is so worthless. The payoff is so weak that after watching this film I felt that this whole movie of 1 hour and 39 minutes was just a total waste of time and in the end pointless.

Consensus: Though visually dazzling and some credible acting, Stay suffers from a bad screenplay, worthless payoff, and ultimately a film you will lose interest for halfway through.

3/10=SomeOleBullSShittt!!!!

Orange County (2002)

Poor guy, all he wants to do is to get into Stanford, what’s so wrong with that.

High schooler Shaun Brumder (Colin Hanks) dreams of getting himself out of the surf and sun of Orange County and knows that his best shot is college. But when a flaky guidance counselor (Lily Tomlin) sends another student’s transcript to Stanford University and Shaun gets rejected, he has 24 hours to convince the dean that he’s not who he seems. Desperate, he enlists the help of his slacker brother Lance (Jack Black).

Orange County is produced by MTV films, and what was expected was a film that heavily lies on very sleazy fart and sex jokes. However, this film is probably one of the smarter MTV films, even if it is just a tiny bit sleazy.

The film’s direction is very fresh and talented. I liked how many of the jokes were actually very good and could be understood by all crowds and would probably be laughed at. Much of the humor derives from quirky and at times highly off-beat, that is sensible and never gets carried away.

I do think a lot of this film was very over-the-top and unrealistic. Many of the situations these characters were put in, though funny but highly unrealistic, and wouldn’t resolve in average ordinary life. Also some of the film can turn out to be very flat and not all that funny as it tries hard to be. This film is also way too short with a run time of only 82 minutes, I still felt that there could’ve been more added to this film to make it memorable.

Most of the laughs come mostly from the performances and characters that lie within. Colin Hanks and Lily Tomlin both have charming performances in this film, but the one who really blows this film out of the water is Jack Black. Jack Black gives an iconic performance as the sort of Gen X stoner brother who is such a loser, but he reminds me a lot like this generation’s Belushi and could easily well be one of the best comedians in the business and he shows it in this film. John Lithgow and Catherine O’Hara though not very believable, were hilarious in this film and made every scene they had count.

Consensus: Though not very memorable, Orange County is genuinely funny in most places and is actually smarter than what you would expect from a typical MTV film.

6/10=Rentall!!!!

District 9 (2009)

I never realized how much I actually care for aliens.

When aliens land on Earth, global business conglomerate Multi-National United forces them into rigid containment zones where they are compelled to labor, even as MNU commandeers their other worldly technology for profit. As tensions build between human and non-human races, a rogue agent leads a resistance movement against MNU’s ruthless consolidation of power.

The first thing I noticed about this film is its style. It uses a lot of documentary-esque presentation, they use a lot of footage from interviews, the use of the shaky camera, and even some security camera footage. It’s that feeling of realism that sells the world and makes it feel like its a documentary and not another glitzy Hollywood production.

The action is amazingly fast-paced, there’s humans shooting all over the place, and the way the special effects look. In many movies that use a lot of special effects they don’t really look real and your sort of just looking at the camera and saying, “oh this is a nice science fiction film”. However these aliens actually look like they could walk the Earth. They look all the very real, and add that in with a whole bunch of action you got a whole bunch of people sitting on the edge of your seat.

The most powerful aspect of the film is witnessing all the horrible treatment of refugees. It’s interesting how the aliens are set up, because you have many conflicting feelings for them. On one hand your scared of them cause their just so darn ugly, but on the other hand you feel compassion for them because their treated like crap. This is a wonderful example of how special effects can work as the hand-maiden to story telling.

The film has that documentary feel to it and it works well for awhile, but then by the third act it actually starts to abandon it and create a very standardized shoot-out scene. I feel like they could’ve done a better job with how the ending was handled, but it still did feel right by the end. Much of the dialogue is actually pretty cheesy and uses a lot of the same lines that I have heard over and over again.

Sharlto Copley who plays the main character does a good job at playing the sort of anti-hero. He’s never acted before but he seems like he has acted all the time. At some points you love him and then at some points you really just want to kill him yourself.

This film is very dark that and it brought up a huge social statement. It touches subject on immigration, the handling of refugees, and so many other subjects are brought up and what is done to these aliens you just feel so emotionally wrenched to.

Consensus: District 9 has some very obvious plot holes, but is brings up many good points, and will leave you emotionally distraught with enough action to keep you on your seat amazed at how real it looks.

9.5/10=Full Priceee!!!

Quarantine (2008)

It’s The Blair Witch Project, without the witch.

While on assignment shadowing firemen, a Los Angeles news reporter (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman (Steve Harris) get trapped in a quarantined apartment complex with a vicious unknown killer. With all forms of communications cut, the news crew keeps the cameras rolling as they search for a way to escape rabies-infected zombies.

The film is a remake of the Spanish horror film REC. This remake is almost an entire shot for shot remake with a few exceptions such as added scenes and dialogue. I have never seen the original but God now I do.

The way of the camera documentary feel works so well in this film. Everything starts out normal, all fine and dandy, and soon everything starts getting out of control. The one thing I liked about this film is that it was a lot more vicious than I thought it would be and added a more of a scare factor to this film.

All the things they do with this film all create the amazingly frightening atmosphere. The one thing I thought was even creepier were how the cops and the rest outside of the hotel were as dangerous as the inside. They came off as people who were there to help them and care for them but they start killing whoever tries to leave, and the film gets its claustrophobic feeling from that and made it all the more creepy. Also the use of no score music if any music made it even creepier, as all this film relied on were the sound effects, which provided a huge taste of realism.

There were a lot of dumb problems with this film though. I didn’t understand why these people were so dumb. i mean honestly if you see a person bleeding from head to toe coming at you that’s foaming from the mouth wouldn’t you at least try to kill that person, I know I would. Also the way this apartment looks made it look like a cut from The Munsters. The rooms had like only little lamps in the house and barely any lighting which I found very dumb.

Jennifer Carpenter, who many may remember from Exorcism of Emily Rose, still has those lungs to belch out the screams. Though I thought she was very believable in this film, I just felt at times she yelled just to yell and add a scarier effect. Many of the other side characters are good to and each are very believable.

The one thing I have to say about this film which is not really it’s fault but how we all know this isn’t real so we aren’t that scared. In Blair Witch we actually thought all those people were dead and their last couple of hours were caught on film, but with this we know the outcome. I think many films nowadays need something that just makes it all seem real, to provide an even scarier feeling.

Consensus: Quarantine uses an uninspired way of filming but still delivers some scares with an amazingly creepy and claustrophobic atmosphere, make this film one of the scariest horror films that I have seen in awhile. See this in a huge group of friends.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (1966)

Instead of the Germans its the Russians, so hilarious!

A Russian submarine runs aground near a small New England town, and it’s up to Lt. Rozanov (Alan Arkin) as the Russians’ second-in-command to covertly secure a towboat to avoid an international confrontation. When he hooks up with residents such as Walt Whittaker (Carl Reiner) and the police chief (Brian Keith), all hell breaks loose.

I will say one thing about this film is that although it is an old film, it still does hold up some comedy that you can still laugh at till this day. The film is a very gentle comedy towards the Russians. I was expecting a film that was going to be bashing the Russians and basically making them look like fools, however this is not the case. Much of the film shows the culture clash but shows how the Russians are just as gentle as us, and we shouldn’t be afraid of them.

I just didn’t think that this film was all that funny as I was to believe. Many of the jokes are catchy but most of them can be very flat, and really stiff. Now this is a good film don’t get me wrong, but I just think that there are better ones out there, that would be a lot more funnier than some of the jokes they had in this film.

I will say that despite the over 2 hour time limit the film was very sharp. The direction of the film was quick and went from one place to another so I wouldn’t get bored too easily of these jokes.

The performances are OK but would be nothing without Alan Arkin. Arkin does the best job as he still does the great Russian accent and it doesn’t slip one bit. He was funny but also very vicious, and you could tell that’s what he was having coming out through this performance.

Consensus: Though not amazingly funny, Russians Are Coming boasts a great performance from Arkin, memorable quotes, and a timeless message of “why can’t we all just get along?”.

8/10=Matinee!!

Mystic River (2003)

Thee boys reunite over a lost childhood, in both ways.

Tragedy reunites childhood friends Sean (Kevin Bacon), Dave (Tim Robbins) and Jimmy (Sean Penn) when they’re linked together in the Boston-based murder investigation of Jimmy’s teenage daughter. But while detective Sean works the case, Jimmy launches his own quest for the truth.

Mystic River is Clint Eastwood’s 24th directorial effort and it is one of his best. This is an extremely well-crafted and powerful film that shows us the real feelings of a childhood lost. Mystic River is based off of the novel from Brian Hegeland which works both as a taut thriller and a important character study.

After seeing all, the critical acclaim this film has gotten I will say that I was expecting to be taken away with one of the greatest films I have ever seen. But to be truly honest I wasn’t. Much of the story is great but there are some plot holes that I just didn’t believe such as the plot concerning Sean and his wife how she always calls but doesn’t say a word. Also Tim Robbins’ character as a young boy was molested, and throughout the whole movie he just acts like a nutcase, and throughout the whole time I was thinking, how did this guy have a smoking hot wife and a kid.

I liked how the film shows how these three men’s lives were changed when the incident with Tim Robbins occurred. The film isn’t a fast-paced thriller, but features elements that everything mysterious and wrong all lurk in the air.

Its a tremendously powerful film about the American tragedy that features characters that I did actually believe. I felt like the setting they were in was very true and actually was a character in the movie itself, and how each character reacts with one another felt true as well.

The performances are what really captivated me in this film however. The whole star-studded cast does a great job and all the performances jell together really well when their all on screen at once. Sean Penn gives one of the best performances of his career, and shows that he can take your typical average working American and switch him into something more than just that. There is a scene where he finds out his daughter has been killed and it is amazing to see his reaction, that scene though so early in the film kept me standing in my one spot. Tim Robbins does a great job as well despite his character being a little nutty, but he plays him real well.

The problem with this film that ultimately killed it for me was the ending. I don’t want to give anything big away but the ending was total junk. I felt that by the end of the film it was supporting murder, and vigilante justice, and didn’t make any sense or create a feeling of anything was right in this film.

Consensus: With some upsetting plot holes, Mystic River is well-acted, suspenseful, and full of great emotional power that shows a great portrait of real characters in real situations.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Belly (1998)

Always nice to see two rap all-stars in the ghetto.

A modern coming of age story which chronicles the lives of two childhood friends, Tommy Brown and Sincere, as they climb the rungs of organized crime. To many in his neighborhood, 17-year-old Tommy is the Ghetto president–a womanizing charismatic thug consumed by wealth and power. In stark contrast to Tommy, Sincere is a refined intellectual who, between scores, occasionally likes to read and spend time with his family. Suddenly their trust and loyalty are challenged as it becomes clear that they want different things out of life.

Needless to say this is surely one of the most stylized urban drama films I have ever seen. If your looking for a real blend of neo-noir and urban gangster films well here is one for you.

The looks in this film are very great and more beautiful than important. The film shows it has a style that does fit in well with it’s setting and creates a more violent and also very dangerous place to be in unlike many other urban drama films.

The problem with this film is that it’s all about the style and barely about the story at the all. I felt the plot was weak and was also very influenced by Scarface. Such as lines, scenes, and even gang scenes seemed as they were exactly like Scarface.

The plot starts to get out of control with gratuitous sex, on-going violence which seemed to showy, and also too many drug use. The film seemed true and did show its point, but just not as well as many other urban dramas such as Boyz In The Hood or Poetic Justice, this just felt too stereotypical.

I will say that Nas and DMX do actually have some pretty good performances in this. Though they don’t save this movie they actually do give very credible performances from two rappers of their credit, and I also found Nas’ narration actually added feeling to scenes and created a better feel to the film.

Consensus: Belly is heavily stylized but has too much of that and barely a plot that turns out to be just way too violent.

3.5/10=SomeOleBullShiittt!!!

Next (2007)

Too bad Nicolas Cage can’t see a bad script coming.

Las Vegas magician Cris Johnson (Nicolas Cage) can see a few minutes into the future, a talent he uses to enhance his shows — and to win at blackjack. But when an FBI agent (Julianne Moore) wants his help thwarting a nuclear attack, Cris finds his psychic skills put to the test.

This is one of those films where it actually does have a pretty clever script, and starts off pretty well, but then can and does start to descend into some horrible writing.

The screenwriters, and may I add all three of them, had no idea what to do with these characters so they gave them one of the worst scripts I have ever seen.The script isn’t witty or barely remotely interesting, these characters by the end of the film start sounding like robots.

Also the numerous amounts of plot holes became way too much for me. The one that really stuck in my mind was though this guy can duck a punch or move out of harm’s way, how can he gain the ability to start beating up huge army guys like he does in this film. Also how did he gain this power to see into the future and who are these villains anyway. I never really understood what they were after and who they were.

This film brings a whole mockery to the word CGI. The CGI is so bad I thought I was watching some video game being played. The CGI explosions look like something you would literally see out of a game of Donkey Kong.

The film does have a high point and that it is filled with some crazy dumb action. It’s dumb but entertaining nonetheless. Though it was weird how the film’s action was all over the place. First it was a police chase, then it became hand to hand combat, and then randomly became a huge war of the guns straight from a game of Call Of Duty. I did not understand what was going on one bit, but enjoyed the action.

I really have no idea what Nic Cage was thinking at all. Throughout this whole film he just looks so tired and I just get so discouraged when great actors like him do pieces of junk like this and expect to get away with it. Jessica Biel and Julianne Moore are very wooden and their characters really go nowhere.

Consensus: This film is filled with horrible writing, distasteful CGI, and obvious plot holes that will keep you scratching your head. A total popcorn flick for anyone who wants just plain and simple action.

2/10=SomeOleBulllshiitt!!!

The Green Mile (1999)

I never thought Micheal Clarke Duncan could captivate me so much.

Adaptation of Stephen King’s supernatural tale is set on death row in a Southern prison, where gentle giant John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) possesses the mysterious power to heal people’s ailments. When the cell block’s head guard, Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks), recognizes Coffey’s miraculous gift, he tries desperately to help stave off the condemned man’s execution.

This film is directed by Frank Darabont, the same person who did The Shawshank Redemption, and once again he’s back in prison. Though that film was about mostly the prisoners this one is more about the guards and how the prisoner influences their lives. This is more of a fable than it is a real novel.

For the biggest disclaimer of this movie is that it’s way too long. Personally I’m not bothered by how long films are as long as their at least interesting and holds my interest, this film doesn’t quite do that. The film felt a little dragged at points, and really I don’t think it felt over 3 hours to tell the story of a prisoner. This film is very interesting by the last 30 minutes but the others 2 hours are just long side notes.

I also felt that the film was trying hard to show us a message about either suicide or how wrong the death penalty is. I felt like both sides were argued pretty evenly, I felt like this movie’s theme caused much more combustion, than it needed. The pace also adds insult to injury with it’s very slow storytelling and many key moments that take long to deliver.

Other than the those problems, I felt like this was one of the most touching films I have ever seen. The great thing is how you see all of these people on The Green Mile. From the gaurds to the prisoners, and also to the houses they live in. You really do get a full idea of how these people act and live by this movie and it connects us to these characters even more.

The added supernatural moments add a lot of emotion to this film, as you sense that Clarke Duncan character is really a good person. I also enjoyed how the whole film wasn’t so centered on him but the other prisoners with him on The Green Mile.

The star-studded cast does the best job in this film and does save this film from some bad moments. Tom Hanks does a really strong job, and doesn’t play his usual energetic performers as he always seems relaxed throughout the film and adds a lot more of heart to the film. Micheal Clarke Duncan is really the main reason to see this film as he steals every scene he is involved in. Clarke Duncan combines the physical look of big, strong, and scary but puts it along with much sweetness in his character where you know this person is kind at heart and you connect to him even more than any other character in this film. Sam Rockwell and David Morse also show off a lot of talent in this film.

Consensus: Though jumbled with a slow pace and a very long time limit of over 3 hours, The Green Mile is a captivating story that has touching performances that add to this emotionally powerful experience.

7/10=Rentall!!

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

ABBA songs are so fun to just dance to!

Invited to perform at a casino in remote Alice Springs, Australia, drag queens Mitzi (Hugo Weaving) and Felicia (Guy Pearce) and transsexual Bernadette (Terence Stamp) hit the road in a broken-down lavender bus named Priscilla in this campy comedy classic. Along the way, the friends change into their most outrageous costumes and lip-synch disco tunes — including plenty of ABBA — for the outback’s befuddled locals.

If you do not like big grown strong men fully exposed and dressed in woman’s clothing then do not see this film. This movie will surely test your homophobic ways and if you can get past the very gay themes you will enjoy the film almost as much as me.

This film showed off to be a film that supported the gays and was going to be the calling card for the gay community, but surprisingly it wasn’t. I liked how this film humanizes these three men and shows how all people gay or straight should be treated all equally. The trip is metaphor for the life journeys each of the characters are involved in with each growing in some important way by the time they reach their destination.

Adventures is funny but not laugh out loud hilarious. I found a lot of the scenes to be very clever due to the writing of the script. There are many moments in this film that just made me smile and have a little chuckle here and there but its mostly the memories of a lot of these scenes, that make me smile.

This film surely takes a lot out of its actors to play gay men dressing in woman’s clothing. The trio of leads are all great. Guy Pearce (Memento) is highly energetic and brings much comedy, Hugo Weaving (The Matrix) is your normal average gay man but is very good as well. But the one performance that sticks out in my mind is Terence Stamp. He surely does give a very touching performance as making these three characters very believable and true. The chemistry between these three is also very well done as you can feel these three all have known each other for a long time.

If there is any problem with this film at all is that I wish the ending was handled a little bit better. I feel like the ending was a bit too bland and wasn’t very effective for when it came to a film about being accepted as a human being.

Consensus: Not for the slight bit of homophobia, but is a funny but true look on being accepted in life gay or straight.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!

Die Hard (1988)

Whoever thought Germans could make such good villains.

NYPD cop John McClane’s (Bruce Willis) plan to reconcile with his estranged wife, Holly (Bonnie Bedelia), is thrown for a serious loop when minutes after he arrives at her office, the entire building is overtaken by a group of pitiless terrorists. With little help from the LAPD, wise cracking McClane sets out to single-handedly rescue the hostages and bring the bad guys down.

After watching this film I have realized where all these other action/thriller films all came from. Films such as Speed, Double Impact, and Cliffhanger all would be nothing if it weren’t for this film, and its out-of-control action.

The action of this film is everywhere. The building it is set in gets blown up so many times I’m just surprised that it didn’t become a huge ball of flames. The action sequences are all pre-CGI era and all the stunts are great to see cause of how realistic they look.

The pacing of Die Hard is also very credible because although its highly exciting and filled with action it still takes time to bring in some down time, of the screenplay. We get to understand these characters and who they are and what they want. The screenplay is also very well-written cause although this movie is serious, a lot of humor ensues from Willis and the lines he makes are hilarious and very quotable.

Up to then, action heroes were larger than life types like Stallone and Schwarzenegger, obscenely muscled and seemingly indestructible despite the many dangers they encountered. But Bruce Willis as everyman cop John McLain changed the super hero mold, settling for just plain vanilla hero. Here was a flawed protagonist who bled and cursed and cried like the rest of us and we immediately embraced his character and all his flaws and false bravado.

Willis does an amazing job and brings a lot of energy to the film with his deliverance of the lines, that could’ve become too corny were actually delivered well. Alan Rickman is very convincing as the villain here and makes him seem more evil in this movie as it goes on, and without this role he would’ve never been put in those Harry Potter films.

The one main problem I had with this film was that the cops in this film are just so stupid. The decisions they make are so dumb that my attention towards them didn’t mean anything. Basically John McLain is taking on this whole army of Russians by himself and the cops just sit there and talk to him, what are these cops even doing.

Consensus: Die Hard is a great action classic, filled with over-the-top action, little shades of humor, and a very realistic protagonist. Without this film we wouldn’t have the big-time action films of the 90’s or today.

9/10=Full Pricee!!

A Time to Kill (1996)

Samuel L. Jackson doing more upstaging than ever.

When two white men brutally rape a young black girl in a small Mississippi town, the child’s vengeful father (Samuel L. Jackson) fears their acquittal and takes the law into his own hands. But as his trial date approaches, all hell breaks loose. Aided by lawyer Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) and his spunky legal assistant (Sandra Bullock), the father fights to stay out of prison and salve his daughter’s terrible memories.

A Time To Kill introduces some obvious material and introduces characters we have all seen before. But instead the movie has the way of taking the ordinary and spinning these characters into a very believable story and characters.

Much of the story seems like a typical courtroom drama but doesn’t fall too short for the courtroom cliches. The screenplay is very witty and smart and does fully capture the essence and the feel of John Grisham’s novel. I also did enjoy how I could feel the tension that lied in between the town, between the KKK and the African Americans. It felt real and with almost every scene there was something always new to reignite this feud and it added more of a feel.

The performances turn this film around for the best. Matthew McConaughey, plays probably one his best roles that have could’ve been laughable, but is very believable with his utterly strong but sane performance. Samuel L. Jackson upstages everyone in this film and plays a different person. He’s not the tough S.O.B you knew him in all his others, he’s actually kind and does feel regret towards his actions and were able to feel his emotion coming through his performance.

By the end of the film though it started to feel like this film was a little too cornball. Matthew’s speech by the end of the film felt too forced and very obvious along with the end result which feels like it was not very believable.

The story is a theme on the great separation between whites and blacks, and I felt like this was brought out very well if it weren’t for some of the clan scenes. I did like their feud I just didn’t feel it was too needed to create a huge feud and the extra violence was put in just to be put in.

Consensus: The strong and convincing performances, along with a clever script make this film good but at times falls for the obvious cliches all courtroom dramas have.

7/10=Rentall!!!

Mobsters (1991)

A young quartet of gangsters with Christian Slater and Patrick Dempsey, only in the film world can this happen.

The film focuses primarily on Luciano and Lansky as they rise from petty criminals and bootleggers to push aside the old guard of the Mafia and eventually establish The Commission, which set up the New York Mafia into five separate families. Bugsy Siegel (Richard Grieco) and Frank Costello (Costas Mandylor) control the physical elements of the operation, while Lucky Luciano (Christian Slater) and Meyer Lansky (Patrick Dempsey) bring up the business end.

This is basically every mafia movie cliche that you have ever seen in one film. There are obvious scenes that are just total rip-offs from The Godfather and Scarface, that after awhile I was just bored and would rather watch paint dry.

The historical inaccuracy of this movie is an insult. I don’t mind movies changing history for dramatic purposes when they are well-made. The movie doesn’t just embellish facts; it completely makes them up. Almost none of the events are portrayed as they actually happened, but even this would have been forgivable if the reinvented events were remotely plausible. Instead you get these fantastical “hero saves the day” action sequences that you would expect to see in a Steven Segal film. And for some inexplicable reason the movie changes the name of the famous gangster Maranzano to Faranzano, despite the fact that every other character’s name is accurate.

I didn’t quite care for these mobsters especially after the first 20 minutes where the film starts to glamorize the life of a mobster. In Goodfellas, at times they glamorized but also showed effects of being a mob member and there not pretty. In Mobsters they kill normal innocent people and were supposed to like them?

The plot is so complicated, that in order to kill this guy we have to get his trust and in order to get his trust we have to fake trying to kill him and if we protect him long enough we can kill him. This also goes basically throughout the whole film.

If there is any good thing about this film is that has to be Christian Slater who is very convincing in his role, and although he has a horrible script to play with he still tries to make the best of it, and does a fine job.

Consensus: The film felt more like a parody with a horrible script, obvious inaccuracies, and cliches beyond belief. A Mobster film for a younger audience but even they may find it boring.

1/10=SomeOleBullShiIIttt!!!!

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

How Sean Penn got his start, by playing a stoner.

The film follows a school year in the lives of freshman Stacy Hamilton (Jennifer Jason Leigh), freshman Mark Ratner (Brian Backer) and their respective friends Linda Barrett (Phoebe Cates) and Mike Damone (Robert Romanus), who believe themselves wise in the ways of romance and counsel their younger counterparts. The ensemble cast of characters also includes Jeff Spicoli (Sean Penn), a perpetually stoned surfer, who faces off against uptight history teacher Mr. Hand (Ray Walston), who is convinced that all of his students are on “dope.” Stacy’s brother, Brad (Judge Reinhold), is a popular senior who works to pay for a car.

The cult classic of all-time. If you want to see one of the first big high school party movies, well here you go.

There are so many scenes that are just unforgettable and also very quotable. The way these character interact with each other is exactly gold, each scene provide a great deal of laughs that will make you laugh for ends on end.

The film also has some very important messages in this film, that is overlooked due to all the crazy humor. It shows very well the little important messages, about love, work, and most of all school. With many scenes that are featured with sure stupidity but also hilarity, it also shares some insight on everything that’s important in high school.

There were times though when I think the comedy was a bit too stale if it even was there. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s story was kind of a bummer for this story and hummed down a lot of the humor and in a way became way too melo-dramatic about a comedy with Sean Penn playing a stoner.

Sean Penn is the main reason to see this film. His legendary performance is hilarious and every time he is on screen it makes the film a whole lot better. Though I didn’t get enough of him I still liked it every time he was on. Though the rest of the cast does a good job as well with acting its Penn who really does over shadow everyone.

This film’s cult status has surely been imitated about 500 times. I think that without the success of this movie there wouldn’t be any other of these coming-of-age high school films. Surely it doesn’t stand the test of time and will remain a classic among all.

Consensus: Very funny that features a legendary performance from Penn, the film does show the little details on what really matters in between the lines of high school.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

The Pledge (2001)

Jackie really does go crazy.

Homicide detective Jerry Black (Jack Nicholson) is on the eve of retirement when he gets a call that changes everything. A young girl has been murdered, and Black takes the case, promising the distraught parents he’ll see it through to the end.

This is a very different movie from any of other Nicholson’s. He’s more serious and more quiet in another film feature from Sean Penn, yes the actor too. The Pledge isn’t as much a thriller as it is a journey inside the mind of this aging retired cop’s head.

I give credit much too Penn’s direction as he doesn’t focus so much on the case at hand but how throughout the film, the case starts to eat up Nicholson one after another until he finally goes crazy. We see how this character starts off as easy going then as soon as things start to pick up he starts to change into something else unexpected. Penn gives us time to think these characters over with a medium speed pace.

As much as I enjoyed the direction I can’t recommend it to highly. First of all the way it begins is surely a dumb idea, by showing us how it ends before we do. Also much of the scripts it wasn’t as much as it was cliched but a series of coincidences. I started to get needy and I needed more then just happenings and more of the actual story at hand being developed.

The score became a really big distraction for me. It varied around very typical thriller score music then started turning into an odd mixture of reggae and typical old folk Irish music and I was very confused of why this music was put in the one position that it was.

Though the acting from the cast is very equal in its own sense. Jack Nicholson surely gives one of his most quitest but very creepy performances yet. Although this is not one of his greatest performances it is one of his most different and you become unraveled in this new character. Also Robin Wright Penn does a very credible job too.

Consensus: Though it’s very hard too recommend, I give it props for its very chilling performances and inspired direction from Sean Penn.

5/10=Rental!!!

Reality Bites (1993)

If your these guys, reality does bite.

A small circle of friends (Winona Ryder, Ethan Hawke, Janeane Garofalo and Steve Zahn) suffering from post-collegiate blues must confront the hard truth about life, love and the pursuit of gainful employment. As they struggle to map out survival guides for the future, the Gen-X quartet soon begins to realize that reality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Reality Bites can only be labeled as a “Gen X” film, that shows a whole bunch of losers after college talking about TV and their life in general. It’s kind of like me and my friends on a boring Saturday night but instead there obviously has to be a love triangle.

The film is directed by an early young Ben Stiller, and you can tell with it’s fresh feeling and comedy. If you want to look at how it was to be straight out of college in Generation X well then here’s your film just don’t base this.

I will give it credit and say it is a good fresh story about love and confusion in Gen X, but it starts to get a little obvious. The film started out really good and funny but soon starts to descend into a very predictable love story and it starts to get really cheesy.

The screenplay is very witty and actually surprisingly very insightful. The screenplay is written like how real people talk and it is, they each share insight on life and it’s very neat to see different opinions from all these different characters.

Acting in Reality Bites is actually very good. Winona Ryder plays her job really well and plays a girl that she has played in all her other films, but this one is different as she is fed up with life and how nothing is going right for her. Stiller does a credible job as well, but Ethan Hawke mostly stands out in my mind. He’s very witty, funny, but also kind of a dick but you still can connect to him cause he is as fed up with life as everyone else but he has more promise and just chooses not to use it.

The love story was nothing new and I felt like really did bring the story down. Also, at the end of the film until the credits there is not a very good respect for Stiller’s character and we don’t quite find out what was to come of him.

Consensus: Though not the definitive Generation X film, it is still a fresh look at people who don’t understand what their lives have to come of them in Gen X.

7/10=Rental!!!

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

A jewel heist film, with a fish’s title.

A crooked foursome commits the heist of the century and is about to getaway … until the London police arrest one of them. Can the three on the lam (Michael Palin, Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline) persuade their comrade’s lawyer (John Cleese) to reveal the stolen loot’s location?

This film is a real treat and it looks like it has fun with both the British and the American, and both blending them together. The jokes are very bold much like John Cleeses’ own Monty Python some that will stick and some that will not.

This is some of the best comedy on paper. Some movies just make you chuckle every once and awhile but this film surely did make me laugh. The two style comedies of regular American and British humor are blended together so well, and fully make this a wonderful watch. There are scenes that come together and can just seem so ironic but instead show up as hilarious in the execution of the story that is told.

This is some high quality story-telling. What this film could’ve done was have a bogus story and forget about it and just put the comedy in but instead they go the other way and create a great story mixed in with some A quality jokes. It’s not just the jokes themselves that are funny it’s timing and how each joke fits in well with each scene, and creates either an ironic or just simply funny joke.

The characters that are created are simply great. They are very inspired but also very zany and goofy and we see how each character tries to get themselves out of each situation so slickly and its cool to see their reactions. Kevin Klines steals almost every scenes he is in and creates a very vain but hilarious character. Along with Jamie Lee Curtis, John Cleese, and Micheal Palin who all do great and don’t get taken down by Kline’s simply amazing performance.

The only problem I had with the film was the numerous jokes made towards Palin’s character and his stuttering. I felt like the jokes made towards him were for more of a controversial laugh but I didn’t laugh because I felt it was a little too offensive and in bad taste.

Consensus: A Fish Called Wanda is hilarious, with an inspired plot and characters, that feature some great performances, that till the end will keep you laughing.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!

Summer of Sam (1999)

The film for people who don’t like Spike Lee’s other films.

During the sweltering summer of 1977, the notorious killer Son of Sam set New York City on fire, and a chance encounter with the homicidal maniac sends the life of a philandering Bronx hairdresser named Vinny (John Leguizamo) spinning out of control. As the authorities hunt the killer, Vinny’s life unravels amid a haze of suspicion, drugs and promiscuity.

I was surprised by this film because all of Lee’s other works are about race or politics in society. All of the other one’s also include a very large cast of black people which this one doesn’t actually I think there are only like 5 black people shown throughout the whole film, including himself. This change I liked a little bit better.

The film isn’t so much about “The Son Of Sam” himself, but more of the frightened atmosphere he created with his killings. This reminds me a lot about Do The Right Thing with less of a message. It produces some very entertaining visuals. Colors change along with the setting it takes place in and there are montages that feature some high quality looks at the city and the people who inhabit it as well. Lee shows with this film is that he knows where to put the camera and have it stay where it needs to be throughout and it is really dazzling to see him work.

The one huge problem I had with this film was that there was so much. This surely is one of Lee’s most trashy films with the “f” word used about 500 times, soft-core porn sex scenes, and violence beyond belief. It gets out of hand at points and I understand what Lee was trying to show but he shows in a way that were just disgusted.

Another thing with the film is how these characters aren’t very likable which in every Lee film he has. These characters all have a bad thing about them even if they seem normal. Everybody in this film seemed either immature or just low in society and you never feel sympathy for them cause their too busy screwing up their own lives, and really you don’t care what happens to them.

The screenplay as usual is highly entertaining, and you can tell these are real people talking, because you can see they know what’s going on and their scared but they can still add in some humor to brighten up the tone and make the film a lot better.

Performances from its main cast is very good. John Leguizamo does a good job and you can tell the frustration on his face with these killings and his urge to cheat on his wife. Most notably Adrien Brody who uncharacteristically plays the punk is the highlight as he plays a person that is fed up with the society he lives in and just wants to rebel and you can tell by through his actions and through his motives we feel fed up as well.

Consensus: With a highly energetic script, dazzling visuals, and great performances, Summer of Sam is good but too ugly for some viewers and surely not one of Lee’s best.

5.5/10=Rental!!!

A Dry White Season (1989)

The white man in Africa never gets no respect.

South African school teacher Ben du Toit (Donald Sutherland) seeks justice for the murder of a black boy in this political drama set against the backdrop of apartheid. When his gardener’s son is killed by a vicious police officer, Ben hires lawyer Ian Mackenzie (Marlon Brando) to prosecute the man. With the outcome of the case a foregone conclusion, Mackenzie butts heads with the system at every turn while Ben suffers personal alienation.

A Dry White Season is a story that shows a man who can no longer close his eyes to the injustice system that is happening so wrong around him. It also does contain a lot about the South African’s lifestyles and the difference of the whites and the blacks that inhabit South Africa. This film does do a great job at showing the whole spectrum of Africa and not just a few white descenders.

The one thing I lied about the film which may be a bad thing for some people is that it’s very graphic in its depiction of the brutality that goes on in South Africa. He shows children being harmed, adults being beaten, and shows all the scrapes and scars in their entirety and doesn’t shy away and show movie injuries, and that’s what I think makes the film a whole lot more effective and true.

The film falls a bit short for me because it relies too heavily on cinematic conventions. What I mean is that instead of focusing on a sweeping indictment of Apartheid and living conditions in the townships, the film tries treats Jurgen Prochnow’s character simply as “the bad guy,” and the movie suffers for it.

The music which I do not get very discouraged about was a big problem for me. This gave me the wrong feel during certain scenes where more current use of scoring techniques would have been more appropriate.

The acting in this film is superb. Donald Sutherland is up for the challenge and shows what it feels like to be an average white man who just won’t stand for the disgrace any longer, and creates a powerful but sympathetic portrait. Marlon Brando is amazing in his very brief performance and I think was misused as along with Susan Sarandon. Both show that they can act but they just weren’t given the right amount of screen action, and when you have two big name actors heavily titled on the posters they should be in the film more.

Consensus: A Dry White Season is a heavy-handed but very powerful film about the apartheid in South Africa that doesn’t shy away from showing the true reality of their lifestyles.

8/10=Matinee!!!!

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

Never would I thought I would see my action figures come to life.

From the Egyptian desert to deep below the polar ice caps, the elite G.I. JOE team uses the latest in next-generation spy and military equipment to fight the corrupt arms dealer Destro and the growing threat of the mysterious Cobra organization to prevent them from plunging the world into chaos.

I remember when I was about 5 years old and playing with my GI Joe’s and every time I just remember making the most outlandish things happen to these guys but never could I think what I thought would happen in this movie.

Think of the craziest things that could ever happen in a film, and you have GI Joe: Rise of The Cobra. Mayhem is everywhere in this movie: in the streets, the North Pole, even in the kitchen, yeah it goes everywhere. The film is exciting and filled with so much action and fun that it really did keep my eye on the screen for long. It’s brainless but very harmful fun and being a huge fan of the toys, and a little bit of the cartoon show I was pleased.

Much of the action was stylized with some great special effects. Some may call them lackluster or inconsistent, but I call them very well-done. Much of the effects look great and actually look close to real life, there is an image of the Eiffel Tower and it does actually look like its falling, and there are really some amazing shots of chases in the sea and through the street that just look amazing.

The film does however have some big downfalls. The film borrowed a lot of scenes and inventions from other big-budget science fiction films such as Iron Man and Transformers. There are a couple of scenes of suits that just look exactly like the Iron Man suit and were never brought up in the action figures at all.

The screenplay is pretty horrendous as well. The film doesn’t take itself too seriously and includes some clever one-liners, but when there delivered from Channing Tatum and Sienna Miller, and not the comedian Marlon Wayans, you have a problem. The lines were so corny and obvious that I couldn’t help but think I was watching Superman or The Dark Knight, I will give credit to Marlon Wayans who does make this film a lot funnier with his deliverance and shows he can deliver in any film.

I felt like the ensemble cast was very well-picked but juts didn’t deliver like I thought it could. Channing Tatum does a really bad job and just looks and feels like a plastic toys the whole time and his love interest Sienna Miller were not very believable as a couple and she wasn’t very deadly either. I love Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I was excited to see him in this film but I think just how they used him was bull and could’ve been used better anyway. Marlon Wayans and Christopher Ecceleston do well and make their scenes count even with the little amount of time they have.

Consensus: The action and mayhem is in your face and keeps your eyes glued to the screen but the cheesy liners delivered by some horrendous acting just makes this film another big-budget summer movie.

6/10=Rental!!!

Double Impact (1991)

One Jean-Claude Van Damme is enough, but two now your pushing it.

Jean Claude Van Damme plays Alex and Chad, twins separated upon the death of their parents who join to avenge their parent’s death, compare pecks, and kick butt twice as hard.

Yes it is another one of the Van Damme action films. All of his films one after another seem to be weaved with different sheets of cloth but still end up making the same suit no matter what.

The action is obviously there just like all of the Van Damme films have, but this one feels a bit different. It’s less about the kung-fu fighting as it is about the highly produced slick production values. There are a lot more of explosions and guns firing than there usually is in a Van Damme movie and that made it a bit more exciting, and ambitious.

Other than the action the film is pretty bad. To start off the story is so predictable. There are just scenes in this film that I called a mile away before it even happened. The love interest in this film I really did feel was just forced and didn’t feel any strong connection between her and the story other than she was there cause the film needed a chick.

The twins in this are not very distinguished. They both each have the same look, talk, and even the same moves. The only thing that probably does make them different is that one has slicked back hair and the other one doesn’t.

Jean Claude Van Damme isn’t what I would call a thespian, and I wasn’t expecting any Oscar-nominating performance here but this is some bad acting. He plays a dual role but doesn’t make them different at all. I couldn’t understand half of the time of what he was saying and the acting felt like he was just reading off of cue cards.

One thing about this film that really does get me even more ticked off is that every film since Cobra (1987), has been trying the comedy-action thing, and it just doesn’t click as much as Arnold films do, and this is one of those examples. Not only does this film do it but so do many others and the lines aren’t funny there just cheesy, and get laughed at unintentionally.

Consensus: The action is there, but in the end it’s just another Van Damme brainless action flick with two Van Damme’s.

3/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!

Memento (2000)

If you can’t remember anything, don’t be this guy.

Suffering short-term memory loss after a head injury, Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) embarks on a grim quest to find the lowlife who murdered his wife. To carry out his plan, Shelby snaps Polaroids of people and places, jotting down contextual notes on the backs of the photos to aid in his search and jog his memory.

One of the most mind-bending films I have ever seen in my life. Memento is a story that’s hard for the main character to keep straight just like us, because it tells its story. The ending of the story is actually the beginning and it is shown in such a way that it makes you think but also keeps you amazed, by this very original but clever way of story telling.

What this film really does is make us feel like him, because he knows less and less every time and we start to feel that, as his life goes on. I felt like I had short term memory loss after I watched this, but this is the only film that has ever had an effect on me that it also has on its main character.

The way the story is told is genius because we always have to think back to the beginning of the film. The film’s way of telling itself starts to take a toll on you as you have to think throughout the whole thing, it could’ve easily become a gimmick but it actually is one of the smartest movies ever told on film.

The only problem that by the end of the story I feel like it’s resolution wasn’t very told well. It brings a twist at the end which I wasn’t expecting but I still felt like I didn’t get it and it would’ve been told better through flashbacks.

The acting from the trio of leads is great and really smart. Guy Pearce does an amazing job as playing Leonard because his dry sense of humor towards his condition doesn’t make us feel pity but makes us cheer for him. Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano are very good as supporting acts because one minute you think their the good guys then the next minute their the bad guys and it really does play with your mind of your thoughts about these characters.

Consensus: Memento is a mind-boggling film that thrives in originality and a fresh new way of story-telling, that will keep you thinking even after the movie is over.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

The untold world of a salesman sure is funny.

A group of real estate salesmen (Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris and Alan Arkin) in Chicago vie for the best “leads” at a small firm selling property in resort areas such as Florida and Arizona. When a hot shot executive (Alec Baldwin) from the head office arrives and proposes a vicious sales contest (the winner gets a Cadillac, the loser gets fired), competition gets stiff, and the veteran salesmen suddenly find their jobs in jeopardy.

The film is adapted from a play back in 1982 when times were good, now the times are tough and it creates a great piece for this story.

This is surely a movie for people who love dialogue filled movies. The screenplay is the best I have ever heard in my life and it’ so funny but yet so true. These real estate salespersons are so broke they try their hardest to save their jobs and make a deal, but yet they still find ways to make hilarity when their in this time.

Now the screenplay couldn’t have been too great without the actors delivering them. The ensemble cast does an amazing job in this film its really hard to say who does the best, since they are all so equal. Lemmon you fell bad for, Pacino is the funny guy at the office who doesn’t take crap, Ed Harris and Alan Arkin are the two buddies who always discuss real estate, and Kevin Spacey plays the boss who is a square and gets made fun of a lot. Alec Baldwin also has an amazing scene where he is just so nasty that it’s really funny.

Though the story was well-acted and had a very witty and well-written screenplay the story itself didn’t really grasp me. I felt myself bored at points, and I thought that the movie didn’t do much to keep the story interesting.

Consensus: Great script and a well-acted ensemble, features a great dialogue filled movie that shows the real life of desperate salesman’s.

9.5/10=Full Price!!

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)

Life is a terrible thing to sleep through, but only if your not this guy.

In a backwater Iowa town, Gilbert (Johnny Depp) struggles to take care of his mentally disabled brother, Arnie (Leonardo DiCaprio), and provide for the rest of his family. But after falling for the stranded Becky (Juliette Lewis), Gilbert discovers exciting new possibilities for his life.

The film is surely a film about a very odd looking family, and the things that happen I found very hard to watch. This is a better film than any other of those great piece of life stories that I have ever seen.

This story is based on a 1991 novel by Peter Hedges ,who also wrote the screenplay, and he and director Lasse Hallström create very memorable characters and spin them in ways so that you know about these people very well and care about them very well when the film is over. I felt myself very attached to these characters and they all gained my sympathy very quick, and anything bad that happened to these characters I felt totally effected by.

The story is very strong in showing how the towns people think of the Grapes as a weird family with a fat mom and a mentally challenged son, and you see how Gilbert tries to keep it all together. He soon falls in love with a girl but he doesn’t know if he can love her as she loves him due to the problem’s with his family. Very strong and compelling story.

Only problem I had with this film was that they just didn’t give Gilbert to express his feelings enough. He’s very quiet when his family bosses him around and you always see he is upset but you never see it come out. I think if it came out then this film would’ve looked to be more strong and very true as sometimes we can’t always hold our anger in.

Performances are also something very notable in this film. A young Leonardo DiCaprio does an amazing job at playing Gilbert’s mentally challenged brother, and he masters the acts and tics this character has without over doing it. He doesn’t get too annoying and your soul goes out to him. Also Depp and Lewis have a very good chemistry in this film that is awkward at first but soon comes out as genuine.

Consensus: Gilbert Grape is touching, true, and the most enchanting film I have seen in years. It gives me a new sense of feeling of life and connects me to all the characters within the film.

9/10=Full Pricee!!

Two Lovers (2009)

In what is to be Joaquin Phoenixs’ last film.

After his engagement falls through, Leonard Kraditor (Joaquin Phoenix) juggles the affections of Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), his beautiful, self-destructive neighbor, and Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), the attractive, sensible daughter of his father’s business associate.

This is one of those films that I didn’t know I felt for it after it was over. The emotions of this film are very dark and not like many other romantic films out there today.

The problem with this film is that it just becomes too clear of who Leonard will pick. In a movie a movie that you would expect to be a nuance story about life and depression becomes a little too straight-forward. You expect a movie that has such complexity you would be expecting an ending that would put all the pieces together, it left me groaning at the end.

I enjoyed how the film is a unromantic look at romance itself. It is very honest and very true about what it’s showing and it’s showing that love is something that hurts and also we can’t always control our emotions sometimes they just come out the way they are inside.

The characters in this film are the strong point of this film. I liked Pheonix’s character and felt he was honest and true to himself. Also I enjoyed how both of the women he was seeing were very different in their own way. Paltrow is sexy and wild, while Shaw is very kind and sensible with her life. I felt very attached to these characters and I felt more sympathy for them as it was ending.

The problem that took these characters down was that there was too much attention put on Paltrow’s character. In the middle of the movie they sort of forget about Shaw, and focus it more on Paltrow. I wanted to know how Shaw felt that her boyfriend wasn’t calling her, or talking to her, but I never got that, instead I just got the other story.

Acting in this film is very smart and true. Phoenix gives a very honest performance in this very slow paced acting job. Also Shaw and Paltrow do great jobs to as I felt that there love with Pheonix was very genuine and I did believe in it.

Consensus: Two Lovers, seems a bit too straight-forward but is very true and shows a slow-paced, but wonderfully honest look at love in real life. See this cause of what I hear this is Phoenix’s last film and should be viewed by all who enjoy his work, such as myself.

7.5/10=Rental!!!

Trapped in Paradise (1994)

The one night in hell, during Christmas Eve.

Crooked brothers David (Jon Lovitz) and Alvin (Dana Carvey) are sprung from jail and hook up with their third partner in crime, brother Bill (Nicolas Cage). Three-time losers, the larcenous siblings know that crime doesn’t pay, but that doesn’t stop them from knocking over a bank in the small burg of Paradise. What they didn’t reckon was that fleeing Paradise would be much harder than stealing the loot!

I’m really glad I haven’t finished my list for some of the worst films of all-time till I saw this one. The movie occasionally seems to know its bad, so try again and shake it off, but fails, and is just a movie about no one and nothing in general.

This film is labeled as a comedy but I found nothing funny about this at all. The film thinks that having its actors do twerp accents, and have Jon Lovitz be as obnoxious as usual. There are sometimes when the film really does not fit in with the comedy genre, because probably the funny things in this movie are only for 12 year olds or younger, that’s if they can get the joke.

The plot for this film is OK, but then starts to dissent into madness when everything just starts looking tired. So tired that the actors in this film look like they just want to get it over with and eat a sandwich or go home. The only thing that kept these actors from denigrate this god-awful screenplay was the paycheck that went to them.

I feel bad for the actors in this film I really do. What is Nic Cage doing? He is very miscast and so is Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz. The problem I had with these characters was that they were all supposed to be brothers considering they didn’t look or act one bit alike at all, and Carvey and Lovitzs’ characters are so annoying and dumb that you are tired of hearing them talk. Nic Cage tries his hardest in this film but to no avail.

The film did have at least one funny moment, and it was probably unintentional. The set looks great too like a portrait right from Norman Rockwell and it does look amazing, but in the end its all just put to waist.

Consensus: A comedy that isn’t funny and characters we just don’t care about.

1/10=SomeOleBullshiitt!!!

Heaven Can Wait (1978)

Warren Beatty needs a second chance.

Quarterback Joe Pendleton (Warren Beatty) is nearly killed in an accident when an over anxious angel takes his soul before its time. Reincarnated as a millionaire whose wife (Dyan Cannon) and secretary (Charles Grodin) have plotted his murder, Joe falls in love with environmentalist Betty Logan (Julie Christie) while leading his old football team back to the Super Bowl.

This film is a remake of a 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan, which I can say beats out the original. Despite my dislike for Warren Beatty I found myself trying not to be too taken back by his presence and really that wasn’t a problem here with this film.

The film’s gags and jokes are reminiscent of old screwball comedies from the 30’s and 40’s. I enjoy films that go back in time for their comedy but still make it funny in the recent time and this film does a good job at it.

The only problem with this film is that the comedy is just not always there. I does succeed in its attempts to be funny but at other times I think it tried and din’t go so smoothly. The screenplay for this movie is smart with a very slight touch of irony which was played out good. The only problem I have about the screenplay is that when it starts going towards the romantic scenes I couldn’t help but laugh at how corny some of the lines were. Lines such as ” I can’t stop staring at you”, and “I can’t imagine a life without you” are used and I felt were way too corny.

One important thing that this film shows is the themes of life, death, love and humanity. I think this film best signifies these themes and handles them with such care to where it doesn’t become preachy but touching and something we can all relate to.

Warren Beatty does do a very good job in this film but it’s not great and I feel like every time he plays the same guy in every movie just with a different tweak. But he does alright but a lot of the supporting cast do very well and showing these stuck-up people for what they are.

Consensus: Though labeled as funny it is at times but not too much, but shows a perfect portrait of lives that can change with powerful themes about life and love.

8.5/10=Matinee!!

Basic (2003)

Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta reunite once again, but this time on the battlefield, and their names aren’t Jules and Vincent.

DEA agents John Travolta and Connie Nielsen investigate a series of military base murders (including the disappearance of a legendary Army Ranger drill sergeant) during a storm in Panama. Samuel L. Jackson steals most of his scenes as a cape-wearing contrarian named West.

The film’s title is called Basic but that does not fit well with this movie cause the basic fact that if we don’t understand the movie better chances we won’t like it. This film has so many twists in a film that I have ever seen. Basic toys with your mind and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

The film definably deserves a second maybe even third watch so you can fully understand. The movie really did have me on the edge of my seat until midway where the twists become confusing. We get no understanding of where we are at points and why what’s happening is happening.The film jerks you around by showing you something and then the next scene will say that’s not right either, it starts to get so much out of control that it soon became a gimmick.

The worst thing about this film is the end. I will not give it away but after you watch this whole film and then see the ending you will probably say, WHAT THE HELL!!!

The performances from Jackson and Travolta are very good and actually are the strong point of this film and make it watchable. Travolta starts out as being funny but then soon starts to turn into mysterious and it’s good to see that all plan out. Samuel L. Jackson is also good as usual and brings a lot of comedy to this film that needed it so much.

Consensus: Basic toys and toys with you until you become too confused, but funny performances by the cast and some good twists, if you can keep up, actually makes this film fun to watch.

6.5/10=Rental!!

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (2007)

Yes this movie is about a gay couple, in case you couldn’t all ready tell by the title.

Firefighters Chuck Ford (Adam Sandler) and Larry Allensworth (Kevin James) are guy’s guys, loyal to the core — which is why when widower Larry asks Chuck to pose as his gay lover so that he can get domestic partner benefits for his kids, his buddy agrees.

This is one of the most offensive stereotypical films I have seen ever. I thought I was bad sometimes but this movie has definably got me beat. The plot is so dumb, because since Larry is a firefighter he could die at any moment and he believes that his kids would become orphans, yeah ok. So in order for us to have a movie they need to be gay.

The film really does play both sides, no pun intended. Throughout the whole film there are so many ignorant and offensive remarks to gay people and at the end of the movie it tells us we should respect them and be nice to them. Holy contradiction Batman! The f word, no not that one the gay one, is used so excessively and for some reason they want us to stop using that word.

This whole movie is just filled with all the stereotypes. Ving Rhames’ character who gave the film lifeless laughs is scary to everyone else cause he’s a big black guy, and so he ends up being gay in the end too. There’s a gay party they go to and almost every guy there is dressing as a woman and fondling each other which is totally what they do right? Also Rob Schneider, of course, plays a huge stereotypical Chinese person and does a really bad job at it too.

The premise is actually OK but it just seems so tired. There are barely any inventive jokes. There are jokes that are just about being gay, and having gay sex. Which is actually a line from the movie. The writer of this film wrote Sideways which was very witty and this film is nothing like it at all.

Sandler and James should ashamed of themselves for appearing in a movie like this. I do like Sandler and I have always supported him with every movie he’s done, and I almost consider myself a die-hard Sandler fan but even fans of him such as myself won’t even find a chuckle from this. Jessica Biel as sexy as she is can’t win this movie over with her body and she plays a really dumb advisor of the couple.

Consensus: Bad, Bad, Bad!!! This film is not funny, very offensive, and down right dumb. Don’t see this because I can promise you, you will not come out happy!

0/10=BADDD!!!!!

The Devil’s Advocate (1997)

Al Pacino is the devil and Keanu Reeves is his son. Yeah Right!!

When charismatic lawyer John Milton (Al Pacino) recruits the successful young attorney Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves) to his high-powered Manhattan firm, both Kevin and his wife (Charlize Theron) find life on Park Avenue seductive. That is, until strange things begin to happen. By the time the pair begins questioning John’s plans and who– or what — Kevin actually works for, it might be too late.

The Devil’s Advocate starts out very normal as lawyer moves into big city, and lawyer soon becomes one of them. The story starts out like it could be a thriller but soon falls into a huge story of evil, lies, and horror.

The movie seemed really confusing of why out of nowhere these people started just being evil and how they were evil in the first place. It worked as a thriller and that’s how it was for the longest time but then it started to spiral out of control when it started going towards the horror genre. The film was also way too long for my taking and I felt that some scenes were definably not needed. The twist ending never really made any sense either and I just felt like it added more confusion to this story in all.

Though those are the bad parts here are some good one. I like the production design of how it looked. There are some really good shots of New York and many other shots of statues coming to life, and they looked very good as well. The story does get very complex as it goes along. Despite me being confused when I followed through the story I enjoyed how it was engaging with its story.

Pacino and Reeves are also very good in this film as well. Pacino does a great job at playing an evil but calm guy and he gives a very energetic performance and shows he can make any film better. Keanu Reeves surprisingly does a good job as well if you can believe it. He is there to play the stand-up guy while everything else goes horribly wrong around him, and he shows he isn’t all good looks and that he can make a very strong and powerful performance. Also the supporting cast does well, most notably a young Charlize Theron who gives us a early view of her acting chops.

Consensus: Pacino and Reeves are game and so is the production, but the story tries to work as a horror film when it really could work as a thriller. The ending is very laughable too.

5.5/10=Rentall!!!

U2 – Rattle and Hum (1988)

One of the greatest rock bands up close and personal.

Irish rockers U2 jam with blues master blues master B.B. King in director Phil Joanou’s documentary. The veteran music video director joined the band’s U.S.Joshua Tree tour, filming the 1980s rock icons as they sang with a gospel choir, recorded at Sun Records and made a pilgrimage to Graceland. B.B. King performs on “Angel of Harlem” and “When Love Comes to Town,” both included on U2’s subsequent album “Rattle and Hum.”

The film follows them from Scotland to their U.s Tour in 87. When going into a concert film you have to be asking yourself two questions. 1.Hows the music? and 2. How does it look?.

To answer the first question, the music is mostly recent U2 standard, and since this is a band that takes pride in the political content in their music it’s a surprise that throughout the film about 80% of the lyrics are impossible to understand. The only way you understand what the words are if you know all the songs lyrics by heart. I think the audience does and you can tell cause they sing a long and there’s no denigrating the power that U2 has over its fans.

Now onto the next question of how does it look?. The important thing is that almost all the concerts take place at night and were very poorly lighted for movie-making purposes.

Compared to other movies about rock bands this film is a mess, but a fun mess. The colors are good-looking I will say but they never change and stay the same the whole film and doesn’t change its look barely. The audience which is a big factor in all bands, was basically pushed out and the whole camera the whole time was focusing on U2 and forgetting about the audience.

However the one thing that really ticked me off was the band U2 themselves. You would think since they are one of the biggest bands in the world they would at least have something interesting to say, no, not at all. During the first 5 minutes U2 just sits there and they don’t say a thing and they think this is being cute. There was no insight from this band except for a little mention of Elvis but even that wasn’t interesting and just came off as way too random.

I did like the music and liked how it was filmed in black-and-white. I felt like I was there with the band in concert and a lot of the camera work is really extravagant of how they go from one member of the band to the other in such a fashion that isn’t rushed but used to have a total concert experience.

Consensus: This film is not a documentary as much as it is a film on U2’s concerts. It looks good and is rockin’ but doesn’t feature any insight from the band and completely forgetting the audience. Get the soundtrack not the movie.

5/10=Rental!!

Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist (2008)

Music can connect two people, even if the music does kind of blow.

Norah (Kat Dennings) wants to prove to her friend Tris (Alexis Dziena) that she’s capable of having a boyfriend. So at a concert, she grabs the first guy she sees, Nick (Michael Cera),and asks him to pretend they’re dating — but it turns out that Nick is Tris’s ex. Despite the fact that they started off as a fauxmance, Nick and Norah’s relationship turns real as they traipse through Manhattan, sharing their love of music and all things weird.

Imagine one night where you meet the love of your dreams but things seem to go too wrong. This is the movie for that. This is one of those films where teens seem to be bigger than life itself, where there are no rules and the night is theirs for the taking, and to be truly honest I like films like that, however this isn’t one of them.

The film sort of reminds me of 80’s teenage romance films like Say Anything… or Pretty In Pink and although I really liked them I just think this one tries too hard to standout. It’s ultimately its own worst enemy, and I would’ve loved the film more if it didn’t spend so much time loving itself.

The film is not as funny as it may seem. It has a lot of cheap running gags but is not as crude as you would expect from a film of this nature. I felt that the jokes were sort of dry and just put in to agree with the moment. Also many of the times the film felt very predictable when it came to those very cheap romantic touching scenes and didn’t really have me shocked by what happened next.

The one thing I mostly enjoyed was the excitement of how the night looked. The situations that occurred were actually very funny and looked enjoyable and many of the characters were very likable. I felt like I wanted to be there with those same people in the same situations and be along for the ride.

I enjoyed the music and thought it was actually good but there is a huge problem with the music in this film that took me away from the film. We see these characters going to clubs and exchanging music Cd’s but we never really get what really makes this music special to them. I felt that that authenticity of the film was lost and when you have a film with the words “Infinite Playlist”, I think they’re should be a lot of talk about music between these characters.

Michael Cera and Kat Dennings also have a very charming chemistry that runs throughout the movie and saves it in the end. Though Cera is playing the one character that has made him a star and basically every film he still has the charm to win your heart over. Also, the supporting stars of the film are equally as good and make this film better than what it is.

Consensus: Infinite Playlist is fun, charming, has a good look at the backdrop of New York, and is pretty funny. Though very flawed the film will likely go down as a classic for teens in the Facebook generation.

6/10=Rental!!!

Just One Of The Guys (1985)

I don’t see many dudes that look like this.

When high school student Terry’s (Joyce Hyser) essay about a woman posing as a male jock is scoffed at during a contest, she decides to prove the feasibility of her idea by dressing up as one of her male peers. After getting a new haircut and lowering her voice, Terry successfully fools everyone — but then realizes that telling the object of her affection, Rick (Clayton Rohner), how she feels will be all but impossible with her new persona.

The film is the predecessor to many movies of cross-genderless such as She’s The Man and Just One Of The Girls. It is one of those really cheesy 80’s high school flicks but with a different taste. And I don’t know what that taste is.

The premise is really dumb and I didn’t understand why a girl would go to extreme lengths such as changing genders just for a job as a reporter. The premise was just made just to provide a lot of laughs about he she isn’t really a dude and is playing one.

This film does have its moments and the jokes aren’t too corny. Terry’s little bro provides a lot of laughs due to his personality of a very horny kid who thinks he can get anything. Also many of the other students in school are actually pretty zany but funny as well.

Though Hyser gives a good performance, considering she was 28 at the time playing a High School student, she’s not all too believable as a guy. It’s not she doesn’t sound or act like one, it’s that she looks too fragile and way too pretty. The film shows that appearances don’t make a difference, but however in this case it’s a little out of hand of how she looks like a chick.

I will say one thing that the film didn’t get too close to offending anyone. I was expecting a lot of gay jokes but surprisingly didn’t get any and thought that the subject was handled very carefully but well.

Consensus: Just One Of The Guys provides good laughs but features an unbelievable premise and not very mannish looking woman.

5/10=Rentall!!!

Total Recall (1990)

Arnold is at it again but this time he fights in the future.

When construction worker Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) discovers a memory chip in his brain during a virtual-reality trip, he also discovers that his past has been invented to conceal a plot of planetary domination. Soon, he’s off to Mars to find out who he is and who planted the chip..

Don’t take this as one of your ordinary same old action thriller, it’s more intriguing than that and surely does add a lot more to thrillers than people think. The film takes place as if Arnold is in some illusion dream that has gone out of sync and has turned into a nightmare, and we have seen this film before. But this one is more different and doesn’t get too confusing.

The most intriguing thing about this film is that it may all just be a dream. So we decide on whats real or what are just delusions, and more of like with Arnold’s character is that is he just a construction worker or a secret agent.

The special effects in the first hour of the picture are really spectacular and look really good but then after that it starts to just repeat itself and look cheesy. It looks a lot like a bad rip-off of an old Star Wars flick and doesn’t look spectacular after all.

Total Recall’s resolution also has me on the balls of my feet too of just what is really going on. We don’t understand by the end of the movie what is fact and what is fiction and leads us to just come up with it ourselves. Which really doesn’t make the payoff real well if all’s we have to do is think what’s real, and not.

Aside from that much of the rest of the film is surely to entertain anyone. This movie is a lot like other Arnold action films it’s that its bloody, violent, energetic, and a little humorous but this time with a twist of sc-fi. The film doesn’t shine away that it’s from the future but also doesn’t exploit by using guns that are noticeable today and not really focusing on spacships like I thought it would’ve.

Much of Arnold’s performance is the reason for this films success. He is not just playing a normal old superman, aside from the fighting, he is a very confused man who has to fight his way through of finally discovering the truth. Although some of his lines can be very cheesy, as usual, I still think this is one of his most adaptive performances yet, and makes this film different from his others.

Consensus: Total Recall has a great boost of action, goore, and a touch of humor that will keep you entertained until the payoff, which really doesn’t payoff.

7.5/10=Rentall!!!

Swordfish (2001)

Whoever thought computer hacking was such a dangerous job.

Rogue agent Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) is determined to get his mitts on $9 billion stashed in a secret Drug Enforcement Administration account. He wants the cash to fight terrorism, but lacks the computer skills necessary to hack into the government mainframe. Enter Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman), a n’er-do-well encryption expert who can log into anything.

Swordfish definitely has too much plot for one movie, maybe also two movies. The director Dominic Sena, who is also known for directing Gone in 60 Seconds, is known for his little or no plot but has many gratuitous car chases, but with Swordfish he obviously doesn’t abandon the plot one bit.

The problem with this film is that the logic and the plot are out-of-this world. We can’t decide who’s the good guys and who’s the bad guys, too many times and we can’t just think in a movie that is all about war against terrorism. The storyline here as well is not very clear and the twist and turns are not bright and at times can be a little bit predictable.Also, when will Hollywood find out that computer typing scenes are just not that all exciting.

The film has many jumbled scenes, that just don’t feel like they belong in the movie at all. There are scenes that belong but there are too many that just don’t seem like they belong at all. Add a very confusing plot and a bunch of scenes that don’t belong and you just have a huge film of incoherence.

Though this film is very dumb it is not boring. Many of the action scenes are there and very cool to watch and I actually found myself amazed by some of the over-the-top action sequences other than confused. Special effects in movies get so much better every year and this movie shows how you can use those special effects to your advantage. Also, much of the script is very ironic and at times very comical if it doesn’t even fit in with the scenes.

Acting in this movie is highly OK. Halle Berry is not in this film much but does show she is great at being a total tease and very distracting to the others and the viewers themselves. John Travolta, is really going back to his Vincent Vega character from Pulp Fiction, but is still convincing and makes us believe in him. Hugh Jackman is also good in this film and shows a lot of promise as a actor and tries anything he can to sell this script. May I mention this is Halle Berry’s first nude scene and although many will go crazy, it seems really forced and doesn’t really match in with the story at all.

Consensus: Swordfish is as brain dead as its name. Its features an incoherent plot, random scenes, and overall just doesn’t have a noticeable sense of style, but is not boring.

3/10=SomeOleBullshittt!!

Bowfinger (1999)

How can this be, this is the first time Martin and Murphy star together!

Lame producer Bobby Bowfinger (Steve Martin) has a script that’s brimming with possibilities. The catch? To get seed money to produce the film, it must feature Hollywood’s leading box-office star, Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy). Aided and abetted by a cast and crew of misfits, Martin makes one last stab at overnight success.

Bowfinger is what it looks like is a parody of Hollywood in general. Frank Oz directs this who is known for directing films such as What About Bob?, and The Stepford Wives creates another witty film with actually some pretty intelligent satire.

The funniest thing about the film is how this movie gets made. It is filmed by just having Eddie Murphy’s reaction to everything, and you think that will go well for a scene or two, but eventually it turns into a whole movie. His reaction to everything is priceless and as outlandish as the movie gets when they approach him, the more hilarious the reactions get, and they actually start fitting in with the movie. Great premise with a great deliverance.

The screenplay if a little drawn out is actually pretty wise. The script is very satirical but also many of the lines from Martin’s character of how he’s trying to con everyone to do this movie is really smart and actually reminds me of stuff that I would say. Much of the social commentary on Hollywood may seem a little too insider-y for some of the natural audience but if you understand what the joke is then it’s hilarious.

Martin and Murphy are really good in this film. Steve Martin does a great job at trying to be a somebody and he starts out as a bad guy but then you soon realize that he is just a person trying very hard to get his film out there no matter how crappy it actually is, sort of like an Ed Wood. Murphy in this film shows that he is still hilarious and can still act as a very mean but at the same time funny person and he has a dual role but this one is different because the other character he is playing is actually a better person and you like him more.

The problem I had with this film was that there just wasn’t enough. My expectations of the film was that this was going to be the funniest film I’ve ever seen but instead it was at times mildly funny. I expected so much more from these two comic geniuses and I know Frank Oz can be funny so why wasn’t my stomach aching by the end of the movie? I don’t know it just wasn’t as funny as I expected.

Consensus: Ozs’ satirical take on Hollywood is smart. And with two leads like Eddie Murphy and Steve Martin there are sure to be laughs just not enough in my book.

8/10=Matinee!!

500 Days of Summer (2009)

No not the time of season, a chick.

When his girlfriend, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), unceremoniously dumps him, greeting-card copywriter and hopeless romantic Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) begins sifting through the year-plus worth of days they spent together, looking for clues to what went awry. As he recalls the good and bad times he spent with the commitment-phobic girl, his heart reawakens to what it cherishes most.

This is surely one of the best romantic comedy’s, if you would like to call it, that I have seen all year. I was totally suprised by this film and its deliverance of the story. I expected this film to be showing the days of their relationship from day 1 to day 500, but instead you get a totally original way of showing these two relationships’. We go from day 43 to day 3, and from day 147 to 79, and we begin to string together their relationship.

The heavily inspired and originality of this film is what really got me. There are some really original moments that are both memorable but also very true and I just wish that more directors would take as many chances as director Marc Webb has. The non-linear telling of the story is not distracting one bit and falls into total order and fully gives us the ups and downs of their relationship.

Many other things about this film are just so amazing but one imparticular is that this is not your regular romantic comedy that you come by. It’s true about love and life unlike many other romantic comedy’s that have come and gone and surely shows what its like when two “real” people get together. The stylized scenes are there and not very show off and through these scenes you can actually feel the sense of being in love.

Chemistry between the two leads is so perfect that I actually thought I was watching a documentary on a couple. Gordon-Levitt is amazing, and sort of reminds of a John Cusack type guy who is your normal everyday dude but he’s not boring. He’s also very believable and very entertaining to watch and I caught myself loving this guy throughout the whole movie. Deschanel is also very good playing the character she always plays but this one adds a little twist and you like this one a lot more than anyone she’s ever played.

The feelings I felt during this film I cannot explain. I never have come around a film in my life that has made me feel so happy and mesmerized about my life and this film, and overall it was a very touching experience.

Consensus: This film is so original with great chemistry, true screenplay, real-life people, very fresh soundtrack, and overall a very different but touching unconventional love story that I loved from beginning to end.

10/10=Full Pricee!!!

Find Me Guilty (2006)

Whoever thought after being in over 15 films about mindless action, Vin Diesel actually can act.

Mobster Giacomo “Jackie” DiNorscio (played by Vin Diesel) faces a series of charges even though he has a prior 30 year conviction, but he decides to stand trial instead of ratting out his family and associates. A wrench is thrown into the system when DiNorscio attempts to defend himself and act as his own lawyer at trial.

Director Sidney Lumet, who at the time was 81, has directed films 12 Angry Men and The Verdict, so he does know his way around the courtroom. The really significant thing about this film is that it is not one of those typical courtroom dramas where the bad guys are against the good guys. The good guys in reality are the defenders of the government but Diesel’s character is so lively and fun you are sort of split between of who to cheer for and that hasn’t happened in a courtroom drama that I have seen.

The only problem with this thing is that I don’t know why this film had put itself of having sympathy towards the criminals that Vin is standing for. If a movie has you cheer the bad guys when one man is the voice for all, and he’s still bad, that goes to show that the movie has a problem.

I also wish that there were more scenes outside of the courtroom, although, Jackie in real life spent half of his life behind bars anyway. Also at times I felt the movie lagged but that was the feel for the longest Mafia trial in American history, so i guess its  the effect that counts.

I really did enjoy the screenplay since most of it was actually said in the court. The film can be touching but also can keep you entertained even when Jackie starts to pick up his game. This screenplay has a very wise mix of humor and drama that is still smart even when it seems like it gets out of hand.

The most surprising thing about this film is the performance from Vin Diesel. He surely shows us why he was penned a movie star after all. He chose the right project to where he can be funny, vicious, and also very serious when it comes to telling the truth and not ratting. This is a very surprising performance that surely wins you over and has you forget that he is a total crook.

Consensus: Find Me Guilty finds itself rooting for the bad guys, but has a great real-life look at one of the longest Mafia American trial, backed by a surprise performance from Vin Diesel.

7.5/10=Rental!!!

Vampire’s Kiss (1989)

Picking up women from a bar isn’t the best thing to do after all.

Peter Loew (Nicolas Cage) is a sleazy literary agent who prowls the bars looking for action. One night he hooks up with Rachel (Jennifer Beals), who, in the course of their evening together, bites him on the neck. The next morning, when Peter is feeling out of sorts, he decides that a vampire bit him. The next step: Buy a real set of fangs, of course …even though most people don’t believe he’s a vampire.

The movie was written by Joseph Minion, who also wrote one of my underrated favorites After Hours. I could tell this was written by him due to its obvious similarities: yuppie acting unnatural, lower side of New York, and a very eerie feeling in the air.

The film starts out pretty slow but soon after Cage gets bit starts to pick up speed as you his transition into full craziness. This film is credited as a comedy/horror film but the only horror that comes out of this film is actually pretty unintentional. Most of the laughs come every once in awhile but soon then some of it is very dark.

The film is backed by an incredible performance from Nicolas Cage who is unhinged, hilarious, and all the way energetic. I could just feel the anger and frustration coming from this character the whole way through the movie. Forget Nicolas Cage from all those other movies this one is surely one that you have never seen from him, as he gives one of the craziest performances in his career and what I think fully started out his career.

The problem I had with this film was that this movie is actually pretty vicious. When rape and two murders happen it’s not really funny let alone something to be funny. The movie is pretty disgusting featuring many sex scenes, nudity, and a lot of really detailed blood which really made me feel weary. Also Cage does do a great job, but the character he is playing is not very likable and it’s kind of hard for us to feel pity for a character that was basically a dick throughout.

I did enjoy some parts of the film though. I did like how the color red was presented and shown through each scene in one way or another. Also I enjoy the low-life look of New York and showing how messed up it is.

Consensus: Vampire’s Kiss is pretty gruesome and not hilarious, but backed by an unhinged performance from Nic Cage will sure provide laughs.

6/10=Rental!!!

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

Mexico sure is a place full of wild crazy things, such as vampires, yeah OK!

Robbers-on-the-lam Seth (George Clooney) and Richard Gecko (Quentin Tarantino) take an ex-preacher (Harvey Keitel)and his kids hostage. On a race to the Mexican border, they rendezvous at a cantina, not knowing the owners and clientele are blood thirsty vampires.

The film starts out not that strong as a Hostage road drama, and then right in the middle switches gears into an vampire slaying movie. The film stars and is written by Tarantino, as Robert Rodriguez directs in what surely is to be labeled as a comedy-horror film.

From Dusk Till Dawn is basically a film that has no original content. Much of the content is taken from other films and most of it doesn’t seem original. Many of the features such as one bite and you turn into them and the conventional stab in the heart to kill are all taken from others and basically ruins an addition to the horror genre. Most of the originality starts off in the film and then ends in the middle and then it basically becomes something else we’ve already seen.

The film really does start to lose itself by the end of the film and actually started to lose me. I didn’t like the two characters, Clooney and Tarantino, and I really didn’t care what happened to these guys and they never really feel regret for what they have done in the past. When you feel like you just what the two main characters just to die then you have a problem with a film. The film by the last act starts to feel lazy and very tired and the action starts to lag into a very predictable boat.

The good things about this film are very noticeable as well. Tarantino does have a knack for a very clever written script and a fast-paced energetic directing job from Robert Rodriguez. They both have a good combination of making a very wise tongue-in-cheek horror action film. The special effects in this film are very good and don’t look like actors in costumes, although that’s what they are.

Clooney does an OK job but I will give him his credit since this is his first big movie role. The rest of the cast is pretty good and funny at showing all these opposite people who come together to face vampire’s and actually does prove some good laughs.

Consensus: The film is highly energetic filled with over-the-top action that will keep you glued, but I expected more from Tarantino and Rodriguez teaming together and didn’t feel my needs were there.

5.5/10=Rental!!!

Natural Born Killers (1994)

One of the craziest acid trips, that I didn’t take acid for.

Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis, respectively) hit the road on an interstate killing spree that triggers a manhunt and garners amazing ratings for a tabloid TV star (Robert Downey Jr.).

Wow this surely is one of the craziest movies I have ever seen. The thing I can say about this film is that the violence, blood, gore, and everything else in between this film is what surely makes this film so controversial and insane.

With Natural Born Killers, the first time you watch it, it goes with visceral overload and you have to sort of stand back and catch the satire and comedy that’s interlocked with all that violence. The second time I watched and found the satire and mostly I found out what the real message behind it all was but it still didn’t come in too clearly as it may have been.

This is directed by Oliver Stone, who has always seemed to be my favorite. He directs this film with such pure authenticity and such art that it really is a beautiful movie to watch if you can get past the blood and violence. The visuals are certainly dazzling and overall amazing. Stone uses so many different takes within a scene that you can’t take your eyes off the screen cause your afraid you may miss a little footnote in the story, through the images shown. The color of this film is beautiful to watch and most colors during one scene change about 12 times and it surely is a beauty to see.

The message of the film is that the media praises and follows murderers as if they are some sort of celebrity. Through many other scenes Stone shows how evil and television pretty much do work hand in hand. Though I understood this message the second time, the first time not so much. I think that by the 3rd act the message does get a little over stated and worn out cause the violence is right there in your face and there’s really no message behind all the violence, it’s just violence and nothing else to it.

There are many parodies in this film all on old TV sitcoms, and cheesy crime TV shows which are pretty well done and actually funny. Stone’s ambition to show that the violence in this film influences what happens with the media and the rest of society. The message is comes pretty clear after the second watch if you can get past all the violence and blood.

The performances from the cast are very over-the-top. Harrelson and Lewis are great and you can actually feel the love and also the psychotically from these two that lies beneath them in every situation. The supporting cast of Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Sizemore, and Robert Downey Jr. all do equally as good as supporters and show their own type of parody’s as well.

Consensus: Not for the faint of heart. Natural Born Killers is bloody, satirical, violent, and chock full of a message that can be easily understood even if Stone does put a lot of guts in your laps.

9/10=Full Pricee!!

Adventureland (2009)

Working at a amusement park isn’t so bad after all.

Unable to afford the European vacation he’d dreamed of, recent college grad James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) reluctantly takes a gig at a local amusement park, only to learn that the dead-end job is, in fact, excellent preparation for the real world. He soon falls in love with a a wild child named Em (Kristen Stewart).

Adventureland is from writer and director Greg Mottola, who also directed the super hit Superbad, and as you can see there are many similarities. Jesse Eisenberg played a very awkward kid looking for reason, and a lot of topics on drugs and drinking. Though this one seems to score a lot more with me.

The film is a lot more mature than Superbad and that it provides better insight of a coming-of-age teen. The very first half of this film is actually really funny and interesting. I was interested in these characters in where they went and what happened to them, provided with a arsenal of laughs. Though as it started to go on it started to really whine down the humor and its character insight and focus more on the relationship between Eisenberg and Stewart.

The problem I had with this film is not so much of the movie as it is the trailers. The trailers had it out to look as if it was a summer crazy teen movie, but however it’s not. It was advertised as a hilarious slapstick and that’s kind of expecting from this movie, but I didn’t. I was expecting to have my gut full of laughter like Superbad, but didn’t which is what kind of ruined this film for me in the end.

Lastly, I didn’t understand how Stewart’s character fell for Eisenberg’s. He is really awkward and really geeky while she is pretty wild and full of fun, and I just don’t see how they can fall for one another. But I guess that’s why they call it cinema.

The humor in this is not like Superbad. It doesn’t have much gross-out humor and less profanity. This features a lighter tone that is aimed towards the teens but also can work with the parents. Its wise and very realistic appeals to all and can make anybody watching this film laugh.

The ensemble cast is probably the best picked I have seen in awhile. To say Eisenberg is doing a Cera is underestimating him and his talent, and in all Eisenberg gives a wonderful and strong lead performance. I liked how all the smaller characters were very developed in this as well. Lots of the smaller characters steal the show and just add the comedic factor to this movie.

The soundtrack is one of the main reasons I enjoyed this film. There are many touching and great moments caught on camera that have great songs overplaying everything else and make me feel the emotion coming off the screen.

Consensus: A realistic screenplay, well-acted ensemble, and rocking 80’s soundtrack makes this film a very funny but touching coming-of-age movie.

8.5/10=Matinee!!

True Believer (1989)

This film was a very hard gem to find, thankfully You tube had this, isn’t technology incredible.

Burnt-out civil rights lawyer James Woods’s career has devolved into defense for known drug dealers. But he gets a shot at redemption when a starry-eyed legal assistant (Robert Downey Jr.) goads him into taking the case of an innocent man who’s spent 8 years in jail for a murder he didn’t commit.

Not many people know about this film and it’s one of the most unknown courtroom dramas of all-time. Much of the suspense in this film is very much based on the stroy itself, it starts out as a normal case with a normal start then starts to spiral into a story of twists and turns that are fully entertaining and thrilling at the same time.

The real strength of True Believer is the amazing performance from James Woods. You can feel him struggle with the case in all and then start to struggle with winning it. He’s so able to put a spin on things, he doesn’t play the same character throughout the whole film. He changes how he acts depending on how the case goes and you can just feel the frustration and anger that he has towards this case. Also a young Robert Downey Jr. does a reasonable job at Woods’ crony, but it’s certainly not one of his best.

There are some problems I had with this film. I have seen the trailer for this film many of times before I saw this and I feel like the editing was very rushed. I say this because many of the scenes from the trailer were not in the film and I felt like the editing was rushed just so they could get the movie out there. Also the film felt like a courtroom TV show. With the cheesy music, episodic feel, and compelling made-for-TV story. I just think I didn’t feel like I was watching a big-time film.

The courtroom scenes are very compelling and although there aren’t many they are great and create a sense of anger in the air. Most of the anger is directed right from the performance of James Woods.

Consensus: True Believer is a story you have seen before but the way James Woods puts a twist on it, it is surely an underrated great watch.

8/10=Rentall!!

Clerks. (1994)

For all those guys working behind the counter in suburbia this film is for you.

Convenience and video store clerks Dante Hicks (Brian O’Halloran) and Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson) are sharp-witted, potty-mouthed, and bored out of their minds. Between serving nonstop shoppers, the overworked counter jockeys play hockey on the roof, visit a funeral home and deal with their off beat love lives.

The one great thing about Clerks is that it was only made for $27,575, and it grossed over a million at the box office. The dialogue in this film is like Pulp Fiction but with much more crudeness and a lot more humor. Kevin Smith shows that he has a great ear for colorful speeches, his characters are dropouts from Generation X who look at life with distrust and talk about marriage as if they were from another planet.

The film certainly is an up-close look at the Clerks, it basically is as normal as you get it. The customers walk in they walk out and you see these two clerks interact with one another and talk about the lives they dislike but the lives they understand.

Smith creates dialogue for these characters that seem so real and we feel like we know some of these characters from somewhere. They talk with such obscurity and rawness that you are grossed out but you laugh at the same time and know this is how real people talk.

The problem I had with this film was that I just wish there was more scenes about anything. The film isn’t very long and I liked to hear the insight of these two and the people around them and I just wanted more.

Consensus: Clerks. works because of it’s raw but insightful and entertaining dialogue mixed in with  very short budget and some very original real-life characters.

9/10=Full Pricee!

16 Blocks (2006)

Mos Def and Bruce Willis, what an odd pairing.

Tasked with escorting chatty prosecution witness Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) from police custody to a nearby courthouse, aging New York City cop Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis) reluctantly gears up for the 16-block trek. But with powerful forces intent on keeping them from reaching their destination, they’ll be lucky to make it there alive.

Bruce Willis like in many of his film’s as of date, has basically played that same hard-nosed cop who turns superhero when things go array. Director Richard Donner has directed all of the Lethal Weapon films and knows how to do these buddy-cop thriller action films, and this shows he hasn’t lost any of his touch.

The storyline to this so called “great concept” that I just stated could have been put together better than it was. I’m not a film writer or director so I don’t know what exactly could have made the storyline better, but I’m just saying that it could have been better. Some scenes did drag on a little bit too long and the film didn’t create too much of a character personality for the two leads to get us to care for them.

The performances from the trio of leads are great. Mos Def is really good in this film and does make this film if his voice doesn’t annoy you enough. He brings a lot to the table and is not like many other rapper’s turned actor’s that we have seen before, he’s actually pretty good. Bruce Willis I think does relive the Die Hard character within him a little bit too much but makes this one more compelling and more tragic to where we feel sympathy and root for him. The one great thing about the two is how their connection in the beginning of the film is not good but as the film progresses the two gain a great deal amount of chemistry between the two and it actually feels real. David Morse also does a very good job at playing the villain as usual.

A lot of the action scenes though do seem done before are actually well-played out and just create a step to have another clever twist in the story. The film is not very comedic but takes all that away with it’s over the top action. I enjoyed the ending and thought it was very sympathetic but strong at the same time and fully made this film.

Consensus: 16 Blocks features strong performances from it’s trio of leads and has some high-quality action but may seem a bit too predictable and doesn’t add much to thrillers.

6.5/10=Rental!!!

Maximum Overdrive (1986)

“The world was all normal, until machines decided to go crazy”, I’m serious that’s a line from the film.

A nightmare world of machines are taking over the Earth. At first the problems seem minor as gas pumps stop pumping fuel, video games flash and beep uncontrollably, and soda machines spit change and soda pop wildly. However, when the carnage begins, a small group of people make a last stand against a horde of massive 18-wheelers.

This is one of those films that you watch with your whole group of dude friends and laugh so much because it’s so bad its funny. This is Stephen King’s first and last atempt at a directing job, and after watching this I can see why.

For probably about the first 25 minutes the film has a pretty good start and its actually funny but then it just turns into a craze of god knows what. Apparently all the machines go evil but it seems like its only the cars that do. The characters in this movie are so annoying that you just want them to die, and one of them is Emilio Estevez and I don’t want him to die but this film made me think. The humor is really tongue-in-cheek but doesn’t come off as that way and just comes out to be another corny comedy horror movie.

The acting is god-awful. Emilio Estevez who is a great actor is just forcing the lines out and the rest who are a bunch of no names are horrible too. Then I think about it, this is a Stephen King film so I wasn’t expecting him to cast like Anthony Hopkins so, whatever.

Probably the only thing that saved this film is the great rock n roll soundtrack from one of my favorites, and also Stephen Kings, AC/DC. They provide most of their songs from the album Who Made Who, with songs like Hells Bells and You Shook Me All Night Long.

Consensus: This is a reason why novelist should stay novelist and why others direct Stephen Kings novels, but has a good soundtrack.

1/10=Stay Away!!!

Man On The Moon (1999)

The life of Andy Kaufman sure is strange.

Jim Carrey gives the performance of his career as the insanely inventive comedian Andy Kaufman. Best known as lovable mechanic Latka Gravas on the 1970s sitcom “Taxi,” Kaufman shocked audiences with his caustic, off-the-wall routines that often crossed the line from comedy to performance art.

Director Milos Foreman does a great thing with the film and that is that he doesn’t make the mistake of turning the story into comedic conventional pattern. With Kaufman, you never knew what was real and you never knew what was really a fraud, and the film really does show this. The great thing about this movie is that we always keep on questioning.

Most of the praise really does come from the performance from the great Jim Carrey. In this film he is not Jim Carrey he is Andy Kaufman. Carrey does not use his usual funny faces and crazy freak-outs as in his other ones, instead he totally embroils the life, soul, and the mind of Andy Kaufman. Jim Carrey does a better Andy Kaufman than Andy Kaufman and its surely a sight to see. You look at Carrey in this movie and you don’t see Carrey you see Kaufman.

The problem with this film though is that we don’t get a sense of what Kaufman really wanted in his life. Yes we hear and see a lot of his jokes play out but fully we don’t understand what he was gunning for. This film also seems like too much of a lover’s pool for Andy Kaufman as almost everything he did was great and he was viewed as the nicest guy ever. I heard many thought he was horrible behind the scenes and this film doesn’t show that it shows a point of view from the people who truly loved the most.

DeVito and Love I think were totally miscast and didn’t really have to be in this film. I wish that the film focused a little bit more on the romance between him and Love and they don’t. The one thing I liked is how all the stars Kaufman met in his life all reprised their roles and I thought this was especially a sight to see.

Consensus: Jim Carrey is amazing in this film and fully pulls it all together, but this film only shows the ups in Kaufman’s life and we never fully understand his intentions.

6/10=Rental!!

He Got Game (1998)

Spike Lee has always been known for looking at the slums of New York but now he looks at it in through basketball, also in New York.

A man (Denzel Washington) convicted of murdering his wife is offered a chance to have his sentence lessened if he can persuade his heavily-recruited basketball star son (Ray Allen) to sign with a local college.

Even a non-basketball fan can enjoy this surprisingly gentle film about the reconciliation of a father and son. When I say “surprisingly gentle,” I mean the tone of the film, not the content. This film grows out of its feelings about the numerous pressures that are put on high talented athletes in high school. This film can be seen as a very angry but passionate film. The real theme of the story really does come off about a father and a son who come to each other and learn to love and accept one another.

The one thing I was mostly surprised about was how there weren’t many scenes of ball-playing which you would suspect from a movie about basketball. This is more about the relationship between the father and son but also how basketball connects each other. This film captures a distant if no relationship between a father and son and how each try to cope with their tossed relationship.

The film is a great visual fest for Lee as all of his trademarks come out of this film. Many scenes feature great color work and excellent editing which we always see in each of his films. I was surprised that this wasn’t as political or based on race as many of his other works have been.

The acting from Denzel Washington is surely a wonderful and charismatic performance as he shows that he can have the power within without even having it come out. He is always calm with Ray Allen’s character and just waits for that anger to come out. Ray Allen I thought did alright but was very flat. He tries very hard but can barely keep it together on screen with Washington.

There were a lot of scenes and parts that were not needed. The gratuitous sex and some drug use were not needed and were just put in to be put in. I also didn’t enjoy the score that was involved in many of the scenes. The beginning montage I thought was good, but the score didn’t connect to the scenes, and I thought kind of distracted me from the real scene at hand. I did how this wasn’t a regular basketball film and doesn’t feature much rap music.

Consensus: He Got Game is flawed but in the end features a powerful message from Spike Lee about the important relationship between a father and son.

7.5/10=Rentall!!!

Lars and The Real Girl (2007)

You can do so many things with a blowup doll, but never touch it, that’s crazy.

Ryan Gosling plays the title character in this oddball comedy about a delusional young man who buys a life-size sex doll over the Internet — and then falls in love with her.

If you told me that one of my favorite movies of the year is from the same dude that brought me Mr. Woodcock, I would’ve thought you were crazy. The whole synopsis sounds so indie and quirky but it doesn’t get that way at all.

The thing I mostly admire from the film is that it never plays for any cheap or raunchy laughs, instead Director Dan Gillepsie handles the screenplay with such care, that I tried to keep myself from crying in the last 50 minutes in this movie when Lars and everyone around him realize what the doll is doing to their lives, even if they don’t say it out loud.

The movie is a very strange fable and sort of has a sort of story like Edward Scissorhands, but what I mostly liked in this film was the handling of the townspeople towards the doll. We see how even though she can’t communicate at all, with anyone except for Lars, we still create this character that we the viewers and everyone else in the movie have that surely makes this a wonderful look at how the strangest things can change your life forever.

Ryan Gosling, one of my favorites, proves once again that he can act and carry a movie through and through. In the beginning of the film we see a character that is very awkward with the people around him even though he has a good heart, but as soon as the doll comes into his life we see Lars the character lighten up and makes him a character to root for. The rest of the cast does very well including the still very good looking Patricia Clarkson who still tries to help Lars and brings the heart to this film.

Only problem I had with this film that Edward Scissorhands had was that there was really no conflict in this movie between some townspeople and Lars himself. I thought if they added this to the film the film would have added in more drama and more realistic being to the film.

Consensus: Do not have the premise fool you one bit, Gosling gives a great performance in this well-handled script, that has some of the most tear-jerking moments in cinema history. Also has a great message that shows that love come within the strangest things.

9.5/10=Full Price!!

Oscar (1991)

Crazy Sly doing a comedy role as a mob boss what is he doing.

Sylvester Stallone plays a big-time gangster who promises his dying father (Kirk Douglas) that he’ll go straight. Easier said than done, as Stallone encounters drawbacks such as a mix-up of little black bags, a daughter who changes fiances three times before lunch and a continuously revolving door of colorful thugs.

In this film, it does what many others don’t do, and that is make a very funny comeback after a nearly disastrous first 20 minutes. I will admit that I’m not a huge fan of 30’s depression era mobster comedies, cause I think they just thaw out to be corny and trying to hard to be funny, but this one was a different set.

The one thing I liked the most was that Stallone’s character is such a straight-forward guy and they always have these funny side characters thrown at him and it makes it more joy to see how he reacts to these goofball characters. The movie has a very well-played out but funny situation that happens and when its all over its good to see it all thaw out.

I think Sly was OK in his first comedy role but he is not too believable. He runs up the stairs too fast like he’s being Rocky again, and he also doesn’t seem that vicious when it comes to him being screwed. He just doesn’t seem like the mob boss that would whack you for stealing over thousands of dollars of his money. The rest of the supporting cast is very funny and well-casted and are surely where the strength lays.

The problem I had with this film that so many of the gags were too played off as being a parody on old time Hollywood films and I thought this called for no original material. Director John Landis, who is known for directing films like Animal House and ¡Three Amigos, I was expecting more from these comedic genius but I was surely disappointing that it wasn’t as hilarious.

Consensus: Oscar is a funny situational comedy that is boasted by a great story and hilarious side characters, even if it seems like a parody.

8/10=Matinee!!

G-Force (2009)

Not many guinea pigs I know can pull this kind of stuff off. Actually none at all.

When a billionaire sets out to take over the world through a diabolical scheme involving household appliances, the U.S. government sends in the only special forces unit capable of handling the job — a squad of highly trained guinea pigs.

This film I saw with my little brother and his friend because you know it’s all just a great kids movie. With producer Jerry Bruckheimer, being released by Disney and in 3-D I may add, what could possibly go wrong. Well a lot of things can go wrong!!!

The movie is not funny at all, I barely felt myself laugh and when I did I wanted to punch myself in the face because I just actually laughed at G-Force. Aside from that the story is uninspired, the visual effects are good, yes, but not great, the action is fairly lazy, and it just plain isn’t funny. A chuckle here and there and that’s about it. And I’m not alone here, the packed theater I saw it in (full mostly of children) remained fairly quiet throughout. Many of the jokes were too pop culture referential that only the parents will understand and their still not funny.

So much talent was wasted on this horrid film. Great talent such as Sam Rockwell, Penelope Cruz, Jon Faverau, and (blasphemy) Zach Galifianakis. Yes the same bearded man from The Hangover, he is in this piece of crap and is not funny at all. When one of the funniest men in Hollywood is not funny at all and just stands there you know you have a piece of crap. Nicolas Cage is even in this if you can at all spot him. Yes the Nicolas Cage, the same freaking guy who won an Oscar back in 1996, is now voicing a freaking mole.

If there is any positive things to say about this film at all is that the film is an appropriate film to take your family out too because is not very over violent and does have a hilarious voice over from Tracy Morgan. Many of the kids will find this cute due to the way they look but other than that they won’t be too pleased.

This movie is crap, and barely a good family movie.

2/10=Some Ole Bullshittt!!!

The Weather Man (2005)

The life of a weather man can really suck!

Chicago weatherman Dave Spitz (Nicolas Cage) gets one step closer to fame and fortune when he’s invited to try out for a spot on a popular national morning show. All he has to do is pull himself together, but that proves increasingly difficult as his marriage spirals out of control and his father (Michael Caine) gets sicker. Dave soon learns that while he may be able to predict tomorrow’s weather, he can’t stop life from raining on his parade.

Nicolas Cage plays a loner again which he has done before most notably in Leaving Las Vegas, but here he doesn’t drink, he doesn’t go crazy, he simply regrets the wreckage that his life has ensued. The most fascinating thing about this film is that the Cage character doesn’t have some tragic flaw or terrible secret. He has too many problems in his life that he cannot endure and he never had enough faith to begin with.

This is a very strange film that has a very strange rhythm. There is a whole part about Cage becoming an archery player. Most of the film reminded me of strange filled movies like The Royal Tenenbaums and Lost In Translation. The film’s comedy is like both of these other ones because of its dry sense of humor. Much of the film has a very sarcastic but dark sense of narration from Cage and provides laughs throughout the film.

The problem I had with this film was that I thought it got too depressing at points. The humor tries to lighten up the tone but ultimately fails at taking away the depressing mode. The film is also very crude, the son is being set up to be seduced by a pedophile. The daughter is a fat, little smoker who dresses in clothes too tight causing the boys at her school to make fun of her, and only the dying grandfather notices and know about it. I thought a lot of this film was just to be strange to provide laughs but didn’t pay off in the end.

The performances in this film are pretty solid. Cage does a great job at taking center stage and making a nothing performance about a guy’s life who’s suck and tries to help his family.  He creates energy but also mixed with confusion which creates this self-pity character. The most important scenes come from Micheal Caine who does very well and him and Cage are father and son but the two create a chemistry that doesn’t feel like father and son but two good friends and it is really cool to see all that pan out on screen.

The film provides some dry laughs mostly due to a good performance from Cage, but soon starts to dissolve into strangeness and a little bit of crudeness.

8/10=Rental!!!

Jungle Fever (1991)

A love between a black man and and white woman is something that can be hated but it’s all about the love.

Flipper (Wesley Snipes) is a successful, married architect. Angie (Annabella Sciorra) is a temporary office worker. When they meet, it’s Jungle Fever. A subplot considers the problems of drug abuse, with Flipper’s brother Gator (Samuel L. Jackson) a crack addict.

Director Spike Lee (as if you couldn’t tell), his main message is that both blacks and whites in America have been so bombarded stereotypes about each other to the degree that some relationships are transpired by Jungle Fever.The movie has many scenes of uncommon power, some with sure greatness, and others that just don’t work.

Lee as usual shows a great way of handling these characters of each race and in a way that doesn’t support these stereotypes. The one thing I liked mostly about this film that I didn’t see from his others is that hes not all against the whites and he shows how blacks can be wrong in decision making too. The one strong point of this film is the strong focus that Lee puts on the family’s reactions to this relationship.

The big problem with this film is the couple itself. Lee does not focus too much on the couple and we do not feel that these two people actually like each other. Lee misses the point that he’s trying to get at with in this film and the couple don’t seem believable. The chemistry between Snipes and Sciorra is not very strong and you do not feel the connection beating off of the screen like I would imagine in a film about relationships. The attraction seems to stem entirely from curiosity, which makes the background material – the relationships of each with their families and communities – the real point of interest.

Much of the writing and editing seems very tired as well. In all of Lee’s films his way of showing these characters actions and personalities through a clever and at times true script does not work so well. The whole movie’s script is mostly just conversations about racism and how one doesn’t prefer the other race. The editing also feels kinda lackluster as many scenes were put in just to be put in and kind of had no real meaning.

This is surely a great film for many reasons however despite the downs. I liked the little inter-stories that featured Samuel L. Jackson as a struggling crack addict who brings dismay to his whole family and John Tuturro’s story as he himself looks to start a relationship with a black woman. Those stories were very interesting and very well executed by the cast and Lee. Another great factor of this film is the set pieces that are shown in this film are surely great that feature a very breathtaking look at a crack house that is very graphic but very strong.

The chemistry as I said before between Snipes and Sciorra is not very strong. Though the acting from the rest is very good. Mostly Samuel L. Jackson does an amazing job at portraying a struggling crack addict and fully shows off his amazing acting chops and his performance stand out most importantly. The rest of the cast with John Tuturro. Spike Lee, Ossie Davis, and Anthony Quinn also do very good jobs at portraying their own respectable characters.

The resolution of this film is very gloomy and doesn’t seem as effective as it has in other films from Lee and I don’t fully connect to the message he was trying to get at with.

The film shows a good look at how interracial couples are viewed as and features some very good breathtaking scenes and performances but doesn’t have a very effective message and screenplay like many others from Lee.

7.5/10=Rental!!!!

Chinatown (1974)

The film that made Jack Nicholson a superstar and Faye Dunaway even crazier.

With a suspicious, porcelain-skinned femme fatale (Faye Dunaway) bankrolling his snooping, private eye J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson) uncovers intricate dirty dealings in the Los Angeles waterworks and gets his nose slashed for his trouble. Meanwhile, his financier harbors a nasty family secret.

This movie if has any flaws at all is surely an amazing American classic. The film starts out as a simple detective story but with many twists and turns the film becomes a very hard-boiled mystery movie. I’am not a very big fan of neo-noir but for this film I made an exception because this film does something amazing and mixed neo-noir and psychological drama.

The film’s emotion of mystery and confusion is shown through its mysterious setting much ado to the very creepy score. The setting was very dark and bruised much like the decade it was made in except the film takes place in 30’s and Director Roman Polanski does a great job at fully capturing the look and feel of this mysterious place.

The problem I had with this film was that the film didn’t feel or look at all like it was in the 30’s. The film could’ve easily been mistaken for taking place in the 70’s. Other than the cars, the 30’s doesn’t look too alive in this film.

The screenplay is very brilliant and very wise when it comes toward the questions and the full mystery of the story. Much of due to the very inspired direction from Roman Polanski, he creates a setting that is not just an place but a place full of lies, deception, and tragedy’s that come abroad on a regular basis.

Acting from Nicholson and Dunaway are just spectacular. Nicholson surely shows off his great acting chops in this breakthrough performance and creates this character that we cheer for in finding the exact truth of what has happened in this world. Faye Dunaway also proves her power as a leading woman and is simply just eye candy and can belt out some great heartbreaking scenes.

The film is surely an American Classic that keeps you guessing until the very end and when it’s finally over you still wonder about the world we live in and how it really is.

9.5/10=Full Price!!

Zack and Miri Make A Porno (2008)

Making porno’s have never been so funny.

When longtime platonic friends Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) find themselves in financial hot water, they hit upon the idea of making an adult film with amateur actors — including themselves — to bring in easy money.

This film is Kevin Smith’s second film stepping away from the View Askiniverse universe, the other one is the bomb Jersey Girl. Now when you consider the title and the writer/director, Kevin Smith who is often known for his funny work mixed in with a tempest of crude vulgarity, I worried that Zack and Miri might dissolve into a simply put dirty movie but its not. It has more of the fun than the filth.

This film surely is very different from Smith’s previous works its funny and can be very raunchy but also has a bit of tenderness. To watch Rogen’s and Banks’ relationship evolve on screen is something that is very beautiful and surely a sight to see. Many of his other movies like Dogma and Clerks II where it gets so disgusting that you just get totally taken away from the story, though right when this film seems like its going to get out of control it doesn’t and stays more tender and doesn’t jump off that cliff and go into filth.

The greatness of this film comes from the charm that lies within Banks and Rogen. They are both hilarious and feature great chemistry that in the end keeps this film all together. Many of the supporting casts make this film ten times better with stars such as Justin Long, Craig Robinson, and Jason Mewes.

However I did have one problem with this film towards the end. I think Kevin Smith is great at writing funny and catchy dialogue but not the romantic sentimental screenplays. I think that the film made me laugh too much by the end when it wasn’t supposed to but of course most of it was saved by the comedy that saved each scene from going too far into the really cheesy love scenes. Another thing I didn’t quite like was how much of the cast was taking from other Judd Apatow films (Rogen, Banks, and Robinson). I think that Smith saw this man as a comedy directing genius and thought the best way too overcome him was to take a lot of big name actors and put them in his film. Not a lot of originality when it came to the cast.

The film’s title seems too raunchy too see but it does not go over the edge and creates a loveable of portrait of two friends who fall in love all because of a porno.

8/10=Matinee!!!

One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)

The showdown between a nurse and a patient. Let the games begin.

Implacable rabble-rouser Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is committed to an asylum and inspires his fellow patients to rebel against the authoritarian rule of head nurse Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher).

The film has one of the greatest feuds between 2 characters I have ever seen on film. A nurse and a patient doesn’t seem so heavy you say, but after you see this then you will question no more. Nurse Ratched is all about order and discipline. Randle on the other hand represents everything anti-establishment, who is in the nut house pretending to be crazy to escape being in incarcerated.Both feud and show dislike towards one another and its surely something great to see.

The film has a great sense of the human qualities to it. Randle treats these patients as if they are normal old human beings and not some drugged out nut cases that have to follow a same routine everyday. This makes you think and makes you feel about life in a great and wonderful way of who you really are.

There are scenes that are just simply unforgettable much of due to the charisma of the stars portraying these characters. They all seem so real in a creepy kinda weird way. Jack Nicholson gives an amazing performance that is too great to be true and brings all of the energy to the film. Having Louise Flecther playing the quiet but very strict nurse is totally effective as she is a lady that doesn’t talk too loudly and wants everything done her way but when that flip switches, oh god it sure as heck switches. The rest of the cast do very exceptional jobs as many will see great debut films for such stars as: Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, and Brad Dourif.

The mixes with comedy and drama throughout but ultimately is the most effective tragedy of all-time. The on-going feud between Nurse Ratched and Randle are simply one of the greatest feuds on screen of all-time and set the grounds for many more effective feuds in cinema history.

There is nothing bad I can say about this film other than it truly is a wonderful American Classic. All should see if you want a film that will make you laugh, cry, think, and overall be happy about your own life, and not many films nowadays do that.

10/10=Full Price!!!

Taken (2009)

Don’t mess with Liam Neeson’s family. Or just don’t mess with Liam Neeson in general.

While vacationing with a friend in Paris, an American girl (Maggie Grace) is kidnapped by a gang of human traffickers intent on selling her into forced prostitution. Working against the clock, her ex-spy father (Liam Neeson) must pull out all the stops to save her.

This film proves two things: 1) Liam Neeson can act in anything by just playing them, and 2) director Pierre Morel can make some great exciting action-filled movies but cannot write an effective original screenplay at all. The film suffers from its totally lackluster script.

The relationship between Neeson and his daughter didn’t feel real or true at all and if anything it just felt like two actors playing father and daughter. Oh wait for a second that’s what it was, so basically they did just a horrible job at that. Much of the screenplay is very cliched, and most of the lines in this film feel a little too familiar to other action filled movies.

The movie sort of felt like a big-budget 80’s action film where one man fights off against a thousand people. This was cool to see in such a 21st century way but in all it was a laugh fest since the film was very corny and highly unrealistic. Also many of the villains seemed so dumb and not very much of a threat.

The high point of this film has got to be the action. Its exciting, over-the-top, and ultimately very violent. Just seeing Liam Neeson lay the whoop down on some Frenches is a sight to see. The film’s action is completely outrageous but that’s the best thing about the film it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Liam Neeson also shines very well in this film showing a great sense of raw edgieness that we have seen many times before but this more in a way that makes him dominant. He totally feels like a James Bond that knows kung-fu. Maggie Grace is great as the clueless, naive, rich, spoiled daughter that is kidnapped, while Famke Janssen as the equally naive, and estranged ex-wife of Neeson, pulls her role off well.

The film is very brainless but has a raw performance from Liam Neeson and features some high quality action that keeps you entertained throughout.

7/10=Rental!!!

Valley Girl (1983)

A Romeo and Juliet love but in a 80’s way.

A punk named Randy (Nicolas Cage) from the wrong side of the Hollywood Hills falls for Julie (Deborah Foreman), a mall-dwelling Valley Girl, and they begin a Romeo-and-Juliet-like romance … that is, until peer pressure gets to Julie and she cuts off their relationship. But love-struck Randy refuses to give up on Julie. Will he convince her that they’re meant to be together?

If you want to see the landmark 80’s romantic teen comedy, don’t look at Pretty In Pink or Say Anything…, look at this hilarious lovable gem. The movie shows the fads, the lingo, and especially the music that we are all round in the 80’s.

The film is more of a cute romantic film than it is compelling or dramatic. Many of the lines now seem really cheesy and it will obviously make you laugh but you have got to look at it this way, this is the first film of its time. Its goofy but also very it doesn’t try to get any laughs from making fun of or embarrassing teenage girls. The best thing of this film which makes it entertaining is its up-beat 80’s music soundtrack filled with acts such as Modern English, Men At Work, and Josie Cotton.

The performances are pretty engaging from the two leads. Nicolas Cage makes one of his first debuts in film and actually shows some of his acting talents that he have in later years. Also, Deborah Foreman does a believable job as playing a girl stuck in between two worlds, and you can see the confusion of what she wants to be on her face.

The film does take a lot of scenes that could’ve been comedic gold but simply goes into another direction where all you get is simple little chuckles in between. Also a lot of the dialogue could’ve been less cliched if given the right screen writer.

This film is more influential than it is funny and a lot of its corniness will throw you off, but it still is a great tale about a love unwanted.

8.5/10=Rental!!!

The Boondock Saints (1999)

2 brothers kill other bad guys, all in the name of God.

Sensing a God-given mission to cleanse the earth of all evil, twin brothers Conner (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) set out to rid Boston of crime. But instead of joining the police force, these Irish Americans decide to kick criminal butt their own way.

This is a very polarizing movie. It seems as though people either love it or they hate it. I have had a lot of my friends recommend this to me over the years. They were sure that I would enjoy it. I did more then I expected.

I can see why many people hated this film and some didn’t. I think most of the problems people are having with this movie is they’re mistaking its genre. This is an action/comedy movie not a drama. There was never any intention of making it a gritty crime drama or a mobesque movie.

The film has no brain whatsoever. There are scenes of just pure madness and insane without any reality, but in the end you don’t care cause its so fun.

The shooting scenes are amazingly stylized and are great in the way they are shown. The camera work for these scenes are great and done in such a way that they are easy to follow along with. Much of the script is very witty and darkly funny which some will take surprise to since it looks as if it were all just about drama. Its exciting and doesn’t keep you bored at all.

The best thing about the film is the message behind it which is pretty notifiable. The movie is a showing of the rise of crime and violence in our society. What happens when you are tired of seeing your neighborhood destroyed by crime? What happens when you hear one too many stories of horrible atrocities occurring in your streets? Most people either turn off the television or close the blinds and go on with their lives. But don’t we all have our breaking point and what will happen when society as a whole reaches it? The answer is the breakdown of law and order which is metaphorically handled very well at the end of the movie.

The film raises good questions and shows a lot of great stylized action but remove your brain before watching. The movie gets a lot of bad rep. but it is still a great watch.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Fracture (2007)

A man kills his wife but can’t be brought down without the big factor….the EVIDENCE!!!

When Ted Crawford discovers that his beautiful younger wife, Jennifer, is having an affair, he plans her murder–the perfect murder. Crawford is immediately arrested and arraigned after confessing–a seemingly slam-dunk case for hot shot assistant district attorney Willy Beachum, who has one foot out the door of the District Attorney’s office on his way to a lucrative job in high-stakes corporate law. But nothing is as simple as it seems, including this case.

Now if Anthony Hopkins is going to play a brilliant person behind bars that has delights of playing mind games with highly intelligent lawyers you have to know that this will be compared to Hopkins” greatest Silence Of The Lambs.

The film doesn’t take itself too seriously as it does feature some tense reducing laughs. Director Greg Hoblitt and the screen writers keep us guessing. We know that Ted shot his wife but we can’t figure what ever happen to the murder weapon.

One thing about this film that really had me attracted was its two leads, and too say I wasn’t dissapointed. Gosling and Hopkins both go at each other which could have easily turned into annoyance but doesn’t as the film showed off as a sort of clash of the titans work. Gosling and Hopkins work off one another and its great to see these two work together, because each both show strong performances. The film also shows that now Ryan Gosling is not just an indie lead and can actually play with the big boys.

There were some obvious faults with this film. The story seemed to unbelievable how a smart lawyer like Gosling would be so dumb and forget about the most important factor in the case. Though the scenes with Gosling and Hopkins were great the problem was that there weren’t many more and could’ve totally added a lot more tension that the film could’ve promised. Also, the romance between Gosling and his blonde headed boss seemed like it wasn’t needed and I think its just takes away a lot of the drama the film relied so heavily on.

The film is well written although it seems to have a implausible plot, but is still overshadowed by the two strong performances by the two strong actors.

8/10=Matinee!!!

The Aviator (2004)

The movie that started the love fest between Scorsese and Leo.

The film centers on Hughes’ life from the late 1920s to 1947, during which time he gained success as a film producer and an aviation magnate while simultaneously growing more unstable due to obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Scorsese, one of the best of all directors, has made an enormously entertaining movie about one of the most fascinating American lives but also the saddest. The production here is incredibly ambitious, Scorsese creates early Hollywood movies, stars, and the real-life airplanes. Its also very interesting to see the different types of film stock and colors he uses to reflect various periods in which the movie takes place in. This is a traditional rise and fall story that could’ve gone too many wrong ways but simply stays in the right direction.

The best thing of this movie has to be the great performances from Blanchett and DiCaprio. When playing these real-life figures sometimes actors try to go overboard with trying to act too much like the person their portraying, but these two don’t. Leo does a strongly effective job at playing Howard Hughes and creates this sympathetic character that we feel the need to like, because of all his time put into his film making and planes. Blanchett does the best job because it looks like she is just having a lot of fun, and totally captures the energy that many knew Katherine Hepburn had. The full energy of the film comes from these two performances and what makes the film fully effective and real.

Though the film was boasted with some great direction I thought that the special effects were pretty brassy and could’ve been better, especially when it came to some of the flight scenes. The film itself is 169 minutes and for about 120 I was really entertained but then there were just some really dry spots that didn’t keep me glued to the screen like many others from Scorsese.

The film may not be Scorsese’s best work but it unquestionably a very creative piece of moviemaking.

8/10=Matinee!!!