The Shipping News (2001)

Could this film honestly get any more depressing!!??!

Distraught after the disappearance of his estranged wife, Quoyle (Kevin Spacey) and his daughter move into their ancestral home with his long-lost aunt (Judi Dench) in Newfoundland, where life is rough and secrets are buried deep. When Quoyle lands a job as a reporter for the local newspaper, a past emerges, a mystery unfolds and life awakens.

So basically the way this film starts out is with a big promise. As usual, Spacey is playing the loser without a cause, and looks like this may actually be one of those tragic comedies, but then soon dives right into some upsetting and boring material.

The film is a relentless usage of total coincidences: births, deaths, rapes, murders, and disappearances. It felt like all these little happenings were just put into the film for when suddenly the protagonist came back into town.

I liked the little scenes that were inside the Shipping News paper office. Those scenes actually where the heart of this story was at, and it had a lot of comedy and feeling to these scenes that actually made the film worth watching.

The problem is with this film is that they don’t go with any of these scenes and dive right into boring ass depression crap. I mean honestly there are so many times that this film just was acting bleak and sad, just be bleak and sad. There really served no purpose. A lot of the major themes of Spacey’s character on whether or not he could actually overcome his shyness were never quite answered at the end of the film. Director Lasse Hallström usually makes these lavish, dramas but here fails at bringing any of the core emotions to the screen.

Spacey with all his might gives it all in this film. He is playing such a different and shy character that a lot of the scenes he is carrying. Julianne Moore’s accent was not very believable, and at times I found her to actually be quite annoying when on-screen. The best here is Judi Dench who at such an old age really does bring out her acting chops, and I found many of the scenes with her and Spacey were the best and should have had more of them.

Consensus: The Shipping News has some bright scenes and strong performances, but fails mostly due to its bleakness of the subject material, over-bearing coincidences, and overall way of making the viewers themselves utterly depressed.

3/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!

Your Friends & Neighbors (1998)

What a bunch of assholes.

Director Neil LaBute excels at creating cynical characters loosed in an unredeemable world. Jason Patric plays a narcissistic stud who swaggeringly comes on to anything in a skirt. Oh yeah, and he’s a jerk to his friends (Ben Stiller, Aaron Eckhart), too.

This is written and directed by LaBute who created a storm with his first film, In the Company of Men, which is about two guys taking advantage of this one woman. And, needless to say this film isn’t any different.

I think the one thing about this film is that it paints a great portrait of sex and love. Much of this credit goes to the writing from LaBute who gives us this darkly funny dialogue about these couples and how each one betrays the other with sex. Basically the film is all talking, and it stays interesting at most points with its dialogue.

But that is also where the problem lies. The film is so so talky, that nothing else really happens other than screwing and talking(which in some ways can be considered the same thing, I gotta million of em!). And for some people who don’t like these dialogue filled movies, they will find themselves at a lost here, much ado to the incredibly slow pace.

Also, though the film is very funny I actually didn’t find it to be very happy by the last hour or so. Actually, mostly the film made me depressed with the ways these people were actually carrying themselves. The film doesn’t show any bright sides to these people’s lives and although they make a lot of sex, and talk about love, they never seem in love and are never happy no matter what they do.

The one thing that really did it for me was the performances from the stellar cast. Throughout the whole film I was just simply astonished by Jason Patric as the misogynistic doctor. He plays the utterly unlikable and cocky of a character that at times you want to smash his face in, but at other times you want to be like him. There is one scene where its just him for like 10 minutes and he really just gives it all out there, and its great. I also found Stiller to be equally as awkward and nervous as he is in other movies playing himself and wasn’t surprised here, and I liked Eckhart as a guy that I felt so sympathetic for in the end, that I just wanted to give him a big hug. Catherine Keener, I though was a huge bitch in this and I really didn’t like her character at all, and I found myself wondering as to why anybody would want to even be with her, there’s probably one scene where I was actually glad she was upset after it, cause she is such a bitch.

Consensus: With great performances from the cast, and realistic/funny dialogue, Your Friends & Neighbors give a good look on relatinships, but shows a bleack and slow-moving film that will sort of bore some people by the end.

6/10=Rental!!

Oldboy (2003)

Those crazy really know how to make movies.

With no clue how he came to be imprisoned, drugged and tortured for 15 years — and no one to hold accountable for his suffering — a Dae-Su seeks revenge on his captors, relying on assistance from a friendly waitress. Korean director Chan Wook Park — a former philosophy student and Hitchcock devotee — uses his influences to create a mesmerizing psychological drama with a resolution that will leave you speechless.

Every time I look at all these blogger sites and I see their info, almsot everyone has Oldboy under their favorite movies spot. Me, I can say that I can’t disagree.

The film is a lot much more than what it appears to be. On the surface its a typical revenge thriller, and to me its about more. Its about living and how you shouldn’t take humanity for granted, cause you never know when it’s just going to all change. With its little philosophical undelines, the film reminded me of Fight Club, and how it was more about the society we live in rather than just the violence.

There are so many great and just plainly original scenes. This is a great directing job done here by Chan Wook Park, who really gives off a different style. The film is a noir, that is backed with little breaths of dark comedy, and so much bloody and gory action, that its astonishing. There are like these scenes that are just so memorable, probably the most memorable would be where Dae-Su has a hammer and just takes out like 30 guys and it’s really something to see in such a long take. Also, a lot of the action and violence happens for a reason and isn’t just put in there to show action, and Wook Park shows it in such a way that its so beautiful.

The film’s script also is what keeps the film highly original. It is packed with all these twists and turns that actually keep the story interesting and doesn’t leave you bored at all. It all feels real, and the way these characters talk, and act, all seem real and not put on for anything.

I watched this film with the corny English dubs, and it’s hard to say how great the acting was but from what I was seeing a lot of it was pretty god-damn emotional. Especially the guy who plays Dae-Su (Choi Min-sik), who from what I was seeing in his character was putting a whole bunch of heart and emotion into his performance by the very end.

The only problem with this film is its ambiguous ending. I didn’t like how Wook Park made us wonder about this ending becuase its so strange and different that I think through going through all that the viewer did, we should have gotten a better ending.

Consensus: Oldboy is an astonishing, full of originality, and well-acted, that goes past its revenge violent ways and delves into more deeper material about life and grace.

9.5/10=Full Price!!!

Taxi Driver (1976)

De Niro can get so god-damn creepy sometimes.

Martin Scorsese crafts a gripping vision of urban decay and insanity in which mentally unstable Vietnam vet Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) drives a cab through the sleaziest streets of gentrified New York City and befriends a child hooker (Jodie Foster).

This is honestly a film that everybody kept telling me I should see but never got a chance to. Now that I have finally had the chance to actually see this, they will finally shut up.

There is this constant paranoia that the character Bickle goes through, and there are plenty of moments where you can see it. The music adds a lot to the mood and feeling of how Bickle is, and gives you this feeling that just nothing is right with this person, and the world he lives in. Throughout the first part of the movie, it plays the same piece of music over and over again (to reflect the repetitiveness of Travis’s life, maybe?), but the music gets more unsettling as movie progresses.

I liked how the gritty look actually got me involved with the setting. The film is set in the early 70s in New York, filled with drugs, crime, prostitutes, and most of all maniacs such as Bickle. It has brilliant shots of Bickle driving around in his taxi cab with some even more beautiful shots of a gritty, but realistic New York at the time.

The one problem I had with the film was that the film has about two plots. The one about him trying to assassinate the president candidate, and the one about him trying to save Foster from a life of damnation. I think that the one with Foster was a lot more stronger than the assassination one, and although it comes later in the film, the Foster story should have been the only plot other than the other one.

Robert De Niro’s portrayal of this Travis Bickle is damn-near spotless; when the character looks like crap after many sleepless nights, Rob looks like he actually feels the same way. He looks like, in real life, he’s going through the same things that Travis is going through in the movie. Also, Jodie Foster is also very good, and shows that an early age she could still knock it out of the park.

The ending is not confusing but as much as it is debatable. I didn’t understand what the ending was supposed to mean if anything, but I guess it’s just one of those endings that are just up to debate.

Consensus: Taxi Driver is a very dark film backed by an incredibly disturbing performance from De Niro, and a fearless direction from Scorsese, but focuses too much on one plot when the strongest plot comes by the end.

9/10=Full Pricee!!

The Anniversary Party (2001)

What a crazy bunch of celebrities.

Recently uncoupled couple Joe (Allan Cumming) and Sally (Jennifer Jason Leigh) celebrate their anniversary with a group of friends. When Judy (Parker Posey), Cal (Kevin Kline), Sky (Gwyneth Paltrow) and assorted spouses and friends come over, it only takes a few cocktails and a load of ecstasy before the situation careens out of control.

Most films about a group of famous people getting together in a huge party with emotion, truth, and drugs some times the films can be bad even when the main star is directing it. However, this doesn’t turn into bad.

The film isn’t painfully true about Hollywood and the stars that inhabit it, it’s actually more about the fact that these sort of parties could happen at any time of the week. I mean it basically plays out like two movies: one about the couple coming back together, and the celebrities that come to the party.

I mean there are plenty of moments that are genuinely funny, but I just didn’t find it to be overall as hilarious as I was expecting. The screenplay does hold some truth to the story but I felt like there were many times where the film was trying to be satirical, and just ended up not making any sense.

I liked the performances here and I felt like a lot of the cast were doing hilarious riffs on their own celebrity personas. Kline is very funny here and adds another dimension, but the funny one here is Jennifer Jason Leigh and Phoebe Cates. It was funny to see this two back on-screen together after almost two decades from their first time together on Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They have matured so much over the years and it was just a great look to see them back together once again.

I did feel like a lot of the scenes here were just meant for these celebrities to ham it up for the digital hand-held camera. Mostly, the last act which featured everyone having totally tripped on acid and just making dumb remarks and acts. I found nothing at all funny about this act, and most importantly was actually a bit bored cause nothing was quite happening other than all the stars acting all high.

Consensus: Though it has some genuine funny moments and good performances from its cast, the film feels a bit hammed on for the camera, and starts to fall by the last act.

6.5/10=Rental!!

The Usual Suspects (1995)

These five criminals, are the shadiest bunch of guys I have ever seen.

When five unacquainted scalawags (Gabriel Byrne, Benicio Del Toro, Kevin Pollak, Stephen Baldwin and Oscar-winner Kevin Spacey) are hauled into a police station to appear in a criminal lineup, they decide to pull off a heist together. The plan gets complicated, however, when they intermix with an underworld kingpin named Keyser Söze.

A few years ago I was recommended to watch this (somehow it hadn’t happened yet) and it kick started the higher level expectations from movies that have led some to call me jaded. This is as good as they come and the fact that others cannot keep up is just a shame for them.

This film can be classified as a mystery/thriller, and when I’m talking about mystery it really is. the story told through flashbacks and narration, is really great to follow. You understand the whole story, and the actions these people use, which have a serious effect.

And must I forget to mention the best thing of this film, and it’s the ending. See I don’t want to give too much away, but it really is magnificent. The whole story that you watched and listened to, would be nothing without this total mind-fuck twist ending. Trust me it’s that good.

The problem I had with this film and it’s ending is that i felt like although things were basically all explained, I still didn’t feel like the whole story was fully answered. Many elements of the story that I paid close attention to, I didn’t feel like were fulfilled at the end of the story, which could have been.

The cast is simply phenomenal, mostly Spacey. This is the role that catapulted Spacey to stardom, as he plays the bad-guy Verbal kint with such sincerity and complexity, that it’s hard to hate him cause he is so likable. The rest of the cast do a great job too, and many of them actually do seem like bad people other than just playing bad guys.

Consensus: Though all the questions aren’t answered at the end, The Usual Suspects delivers from a great story, phenomenal ensemble-cast acting, and an ending that will blow your mind.

9/10=Full Price!!

The Notebook (2004)

With Dear John coming out, this just had to be done.

Two young lovers (Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams) are torn apart by war and class differences in the 1940s in this adaptation of Nicholas Sparks’s best-selling novel. Their story is told by a man (James Garner) who, years later, reads from a notebook while he visits a woman in a nursing home (Gena Rowlands).

This film since the time it came out has had chicks all over the world, just crying their eyes out saying “I love this movie, it’s so sad and romantic”. For me, I never wanted to buy into this crap, but I did, and I’m actually glad I did.

Now when it comes to melodramatic romances, this film is pretty high up there. I mean there are plenty of times where I was reminded of some of the other great Romance stories, and this film does it very well. The film is a tearjerker and at some scenes I did get a bit emotional, not totally, but a bit. Just the general romance between these two and how they still are able to love one another, actually makes this film worthwhile.

While most of the movie is set in the 1940’s and gives you a feel for that era, I felt some of the language and actions were a little bit anachronistic — nothing major, but just enough to occasionally break the illusion (such as a very Joan Rivers-like finger down the throat gesture. Perhaps they did this in the ’40’s but it seemed out of place whether it truly was or not.)

The problem with this film is that it is a very predictable and obvious story. I mean the constant flashbacks kind of pissed me off cause they gave away the ending to the story which would have kept me wondering till the end what was going to happen to these two. Also, though it doesn’t matter to me in some movies, the score in this film just didn’t feel right. There were little pieces that could have been a lot more emotional if given the right type of movement within the music, I don’t know it’s just me though.

Much of the praise goes to the chemistry between its two stars. Gosling as always is great, and shows that he can play those toned-down roles like the back of his hand. But the best here is Rachel McAdams who much to my surprise here is given such a difficult role that calls for a lot of changes and emotion, and mostly on every note she hits it very well. Their love feels real by the end of the film and not just because the film is trying to tell you that, is cause when they talk they talk like real people.

Consensus: Though it has an obvious predictable story with an over-done score, The Notebook features enough emotional depth, and wonderful chemistry to keep me entertained throughout this sappy tearjerker.

8/10=Matinee!!!!

Richard Pryor – Live on Sunset Strip (1982)

I remember one day, I was looking up reviews on Eminem’s new album, and one critic compared it to this movie, Richard Pryor: Live on the Sunset Strip. Since I had yet to see this movie, I decided to go out and find it.

No subject is safe from barrier-breaking comedian Richard Pryor — not even Richard Pryor himself. Proving his main passion is to make us laugh, the unflinching Pryor cracks jokes about his near-fatal drug-related accident and the fallout in his personal life.

Now I have always heard about Richard Pryor from movie critics, and other fellow comedians, that he was one of the greatest. And to be honest, I never saw any of his stand-up acts, and I’m pretty mad at myself for that now.

The film has tons of laughs and the one best thing about this film is that Pryor does not shy away once from touching on any subject. He makes fun of his own race, which is hilarious but in the same way, also very brave and true.

This gig was actually Richard Pryor’s first since he accidentally set himself on fire while freebasing on cocaine. He talks about anything and everything here: Nazis, marriage, sex, lawyers, Africa, the mafia, the list goes on. While the jokes here are suitably edgy, there are some touching personal moments as well.

However, watch this film closely and you’ll notice the laugh track and the mismatched visuals, as a good portion of it was shot on the Columbia lot and not in front of a live audience. The editing team does their best to give the impression of a single seamless performance, but the fact that it is a combination of three separate dates at two wholly different locations is glaringly obvious.

Pryor shows that he is one and always will be one of the best with his whole act here. He is basically one of the main reasons why comedians have jokes today, and without him all jokes would be knock-knock and racist jokes. He is hilarious as usual and gives probably one of the best delivered stand-up performances I have ever seen.

Consensus: Pryor is on top of his game, with the constant jokes that touch on every controversial subject, while providing enough humor and enough insight from one of the truly greats of comedy.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!!

Ali (2001)

Proof of why you don’t fuck with Will Smith.

Michael Mann’s drama centers on the personal and professional lives of boxing legend Muhammad Ali (Will Smith), but brings with it an examination of the social and political issues during the decades in which he ruled the ring. From the early 1960s, through his anti-Vietnam War stance, to his epic title bouts with Liston, Frazier and Foreman, Ali stirred controversy and proved that he is, indeed, The Greatest.

This film actually surprised me at first. This film is directed by Michael Mann, who has directed action-thrillers The Insider, and Heat. But with this one he shows that he can actually direct a film without big explosions and guns shooting all over the place.

The film focuses on one of Ali’s most controversial periods of his life, 1962-1974. The film does show us all the sides of Ali, he was womanizer, and strong believer in faith, and most of all his relationships with Howard Cosell, played by Voight, and Malcom X, by Mario Van Peebles. The details of Ali’s life are packed all into this film, and the boxing scenes are actually shown in some great stylized ways.

The problem with this film is that there is so much about this character in real life, its hard to just cramp it all into a two-hour and thirty minute film. Also, plenty of scenes that didn’t need to be long seemed like they we’re going on forever. I liked how the boxing scenes played out like in real-time, but there are plenty of other scenes dealing with his personal life, that ran on too long.

The film lost me at points during this film too. I mean I was entertained for the most part at some scenes, but there were plenty of scenes that just all seemed mottled and put together just to make the screen-time longer. With the way the scenes are put together, most of this will get you glued to the screen but some parts will have you a bit bored.

With Will Smith playing Ali, here is my opinion. Smith does do a credible job of playing Ali, but the problem here is that he never really captures the body of him, more of just doing an elaborate impersonation. In fact there is so much real-life footage of Ali, that I feel like Smith was faced with a huge task by shadow-boxing a legend. Though I will give him credit, Smith makes a lot of these scenes very very emotional cause he actually does make you laugh, and understand Ali.

Consensus: Ali lost me at points with its long time limit of scenes that just don’t matter, and although Smith is good here as Ali, it doesn’t seem like he captured the whole essence of Ali.

6/10=Rental!!

The Uninvited (2009)

What a different kind of  plot, sike!

Committed to a mental hospital after her mother’s tragic death, grieving teenager Anna (Emily Browning) discovers upon her release that her father (David Strathairn) plans to marry his deceased wife’s former nurse (Elizabeth Banks), a woman who might not have the best intentions. But foreboding warnings from her mother’s ghost only cement Anna’s suspicions.

So basically this is one of the 5,000 Japanese horror remakes that just take over Hollywood nowadays, and to be truly honest compared to some others, its not terrible just not that good either.

For the adaptation nearly all the complexity of the original has been stripped out. The play is more linear and the pace, though remaining necessarily slow, has been adjusted for the American audience. I hate to think that to make the wonderful original screenplay saleable in the USA it had to be “dumbed down.”

I felt like their were a lot of nice twists and turns that did keep this film a little bit on the interesting level. Some twists, especially the one at the end, was actually suprising, and others just seemed highly implausible and just put in to add another little twist to the story.

I feel like the horror element to this film wasn’t as bad as I was expecting but it didn’t quite hit the mark as I was expecting. There were a lot of the usual jumps and scares that you would suspect out of this movie, and I felt like the film actually had a lot going for it, and when it proceeded just to show us these on-and-off again little jumps, I felt a bit dissapointed.

The film’s acting is actually pretty good. Browning gives a very nice effective lead performance here as the young girl who is so confused in life and doesn’t know what she wants, proceeds to make life better for her. The huge problem with the film I had was the casting of Elizabeth Banks as the crazy nurse. Not only can you not take her seriously, but many of the times you feel like the lines she delivers are horrible, and very contrived.

I think the film’s rating since it is PG-13 ruined this film. One reason because I felt like the film could have been a lot more bloody and gory compared to its predecessor, and instead just stays within the boundries of safe and easy PG-13 territory.

Consensus: The Uninvited actually has some nice twists and turns to keep you interested and a nice lead performance, but is brought down by its contrived PG-13 rating, and the jumps and scares that end up plaguing the film.

4/10=SomeOleBullShit!!!

Smart People (2008)

I wish some of these people were actually smart.

An unexpected romance with a charming former student (Sarah Jessica Parker) and a surprise visit from his wild adopted brother (Thomas Haden Church) conspire to turn the life of widowed professor Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid) upside down in this witty dramedy from director Noam Murro. But after nursing his bitterness for so many years, is the self-absorbed academic ready for change? Ellen Page and Ashton Holmes co-star.

Surprisingly, the film actually brings out a couple of well-earned laughs. With its sardonic tone about academics, this film may come as to be, well no pun intended, too smart for some people with its humor.

It is dark and at the same time witty. The wit barely ever loses its flavor throughout the whole run time. A movie that expresses the point that smart people too, can be quite stupid, and that a high IQ isn’t the only thing that makes you smart, there are things that can’t be learned through books.

However, how the film starts out as a witty dark comedy, starts to turn into what we call predictable hell. The last act is very very conventional among these romantic comedy terms. During the end, I kind of had a feeling where this film was going, and I must say I wasn’t too pleased cause at times when I found the film to be spot-on about dysfunctional families, it was off the mark with its romance.

Dennis Quaid really gives a very smart, and admirable performance here as the guy who wants to change his life, but strictly can’t. Haden Church basically owns pretty much every scene he’s in, and brings out this hip slacker dude that all comedies find funny. I just had a problem with Sarah Jessica Parker and found her very miscast here, cause she doesn’t show much emotion during the scenes that allow her to show it off, and when she does it doesn’t seem like it’s enough.

Consensus: Smart People is a witty, and at times dark comedy about education and family, but falls by the third act, and may achieve some problems with its romantic comedy sub-plot.

6/10=Rental!!!

Desperate Hours (1990)

Random hostages don’t always work in the best way.

Director Michael Cimino’s thriller centers on a separated couple, Tim (Anthony Hopkins) and Nora (Mimi Rogers), who wind up housing and trying to trap escaped psychotic killer Michael Bosworth (Mickey Rourke). Until Bosworth’s accomplice (Kelly Lynch) shows up to take him to Mexico, he attempts to elude FBI agent Brenda Chandler (Lindsay Crouse). Meanwhile, Tim and Nora broach their marital troubles in the face of terror and desperation.

The film is your basic home invasion film. Director Cimino (The Deer Hunter) tries to put a whole new different meaning to this film, and try to make it something other than a home invasion movie, where basically all of is staying in the house and being treated poorly.

I never understood why Rourke felt the need why this one house break-in was so desperate and needed. It almost came to me as random, why would he just choose this one house to basically invade and torture?

The thing that got me going with this film was a lot of the way it was actually based around, and that was suspense. It actually has a lot of genuine moments where you are on the edge of your seat wondering what is going to happen next to this family, and these criminals, who you really despise.

The writing isn’t so top-notch and at times is a bit cliched. I feel like the film could have been a lot more dramatic by adding a lot of flavor and freshness to its writing so it could have been a lot more effective. Also, that annoying, and almost at times comical music score just annoyed the crap out of me. It felt like I was watching a film in 1990 with the old 1922 score.

The thing that saves this film is that its performances from the two leads are actually very very good. Hopkins gives his usual bad-ass character, that keeps his strength through the whole film and never loses a sense of pride. The best here is Rourke who proves to be so unlikable, and just so hateful, that his charm at times almost makes you forget he’s a total dick head.

Consensus: Desperate Hours doesn’t have the best writing and features some plot holes, but is all about suspense, and delivers on that level as well as the performances from Rourke and Hopkins.

5/10=Rental!!!

The Truth About Charlie (2002)

This Charlie guy does sound like a real dick!

Romance and suspense ignite a modern Paris backdrop in director Jonathan Demme’s fresh take on the Stanley Donen film Charade (also included on this disc). Regina (Thandie Newton) meets Joshua (Mark Wahlberg) while on vacation, as she’s contemplating ending her marriage to Charlie (Stephen Dillane). But upon her return to Paris, she finds that both her apartment and her bank account have been emptied — and her husband has been murdered.

Now it seems like remakes are coming out almost every week now, and this remake on a 1963 film Charade, is almost no different.

Jonathan Demme takes out the star power photographs the most drearily rainy Paris ever, and dumbs down all the lines. He veers back and forth between a darker take and remaking the original frothy whodunit until it’s not clear what he intended to do. A big miss all around. Unfortunately, I think Demme was working with a wrong material for what he wanted. At times, it even appeared that Demme himself was confused about whether he wanted a straight-forward light comedy or a more convoluted dark humor for the laughs. And the end result is a movie that doesn’t really succeed at anything it sets out to do.

This movie has way too many coinicidences that don’t seem reasonable or a bit too predictable. There is then a ridiculous scene where everyone who has threatened her just happens to show up at a dance hall, taking turns dancing with this heroine.

Thandie Newton does give out that little charm we know she can do very well, and brings out an actually good performance here as the lead. The problem was that I felt like Wahlberg as much as I love him he did feel seem a bit too clunky for this material and was acting too much as if he was in some action film, with his usual macho-esque appeal.

Consensus: Newton brings a lot of charm to the film, but is slow and doesn’t seem real at all, and more about the constant coincidences then the actual story itself.

3/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!

Cop Land (1997)

I highly doubt any of these guys would be cops at all.

When a local patrolman is implicated in a controversial shooting in a small New Jersey town, put-upon sheriff Freddy Heflin teams up with Lt. Moe Tilden (Robert De Niro) to investigate a connection between the mob and the NYPD officers who live in the town. Sylvester Stallone delivers a dramatic performance in this arresting crime thriller as Freddy. Harvey Keitel and Ray Liotta also star.

Cop Land is a cop drama that is filled with a lot of those cliches that always rid every single cop film like this. The us vs them mentality, dirty cops, and most of all down-on-his luck cop. I mean I have seen this story plenty and plenty of times, and I just wish a bit more was added on to this film to make its story seem more and more fresh.

But the real reason for seeing this film is its rich plot. The story has plenty of twists and turns that actually keep you interested. The film doesn’t try to act like Goodfellas or The Godfather with its mob tie-ins, it more of acts like itself with some really nice set-up suspenseful scenes.

I liked how the film didn’t just try to show one story and just leave it at that. No, it had all these three exciting stories all having to do something with crime and justice, and putting them all together at the end. It actually felt like three NYPD Blues episodes put into one long film but it didn’t feel like a TV show and actually had a lot of depth added to it.

Sylvester Stallone totally gets rid of his macho action star look that he has done for so long in this rare but effective dramatic role. He gives this down-and-out cop we have seen time and time again, but adds an extra dimension to this character as we understand who he used to be and who he is now. The only problem I had with this huge ensemble cast is that not all of them were quite used as well as Stallone. I mean each does get a considerable amount of screen-time, but they aren’t as focused on as Stallone and I would have liked to see more of these characters lives instead of just one part of them.

The problem with this film by the end actually kind of killed the momentum it had going for it. I think the ending as predictable as it was, should have been made in a different far more realistic way. I mean its very very sappy, and doesn’t quite feel right in the film.

Consensus: Cop Land has its obvious cliches and bad ending, but features a fun and interesting story, backed by an effective dramatic performance from Stallone, but not enough time was given to the others in my opinion.

7.5/10=Rental!!

An Education (2009)

Sounds like a Pink Floyd song.

Jenny’s (Carey Mulligan) Oxford-bound teen life is undistinguished in 1961 London until she’s given a different kind of education after being immersed in the beguiling but hazardous world of cultured and much-older David (Peter Sarsgaard). Even Jenny’s father, Jack (Alfred Molina), is intrigued by him, but her school’s unimpressed headmistress (Emma Thompson) works to keep Jenny’s entire future from crumbling under David’s influence.

Set in 1961 London, “An Education” tells the all too familiar tale of a high school girl seduced by an older cad. The girl in question is tops in her class and bound for Oxford. She repeatedly beseeches the adults around her to give her a compelling reason to go to Oxford rather than run off with the cad.

The film isn’t so much about the relationship, and surprisingly isn’t terribly sexual with its PG-13 rating. It is actually more about Jenny, and how she is finally introduced into this new world, that she was so sheltered from due to school. This is about discovering a new part of the world, after being sheltered for so long.

The film is depicted in the 60’s and I really did feel like I was in it. You could feel that slight bit of change in the culture. Like honestly why were women getting an education in the 60’s, because there weren’t any options open for them after they got their degree.

The one thing that got me with this film is that it doesn’t quite hold up all the way. The dialogue is a bit implausible, and that does start to show by the third act. I’m not going to say that I knew what was going to happen but I will say I kind of had a feeling that all of this was too good to be true. I feel like a lot of the writing does add a lot to the uncomfortable level in this film, and that I had a problem with at times.

The real saving grace from this film is the amazing lead performance from Carey Mulligan. Mulligan gives out the definition of a star-making performance, because the role of a girl losing her innocence and going from wide-eyed to sassy know-it-all, it is not an easy role, but she is spot on. Peter Sarsgaard is perfectly cast here, I find him super creepy and also very charming and likable, and I never knew which one of those things he is.

Consensus: The dialogue may run out of steam by the third act, but An Education blossoms with its great coming-of-age themes with a new twist, and a star-making performance from Mulligan.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

The Pacifier (2005)

Sorry Vinny, but I would not trust you one bit with my kids.

Tough-guy Navy SEAL Shane Wolf (Vin Diesel) never imagined that he’d wind up as a babysitter for a crop of unruly kids. But now that he is, he’s shocked to discover that it’s the hardest job he’s ever had in his life. His mission, which he has no choice but to accept, is to protect the children (including Brittany Snow, Max Thieriot and Morgan York) of a scientist who was killed while working on a top-secret government project.

Basically many of Hollywood’s big-time action stars have to do it. Arnold in Kinder garden Cop, The Rock in The Tooth Fairy and Game Plan, and most recently Jackie Chan with The Spy Next Door. Vin Diesel follows those foot steps.

The film follows all the same exact formulas would expect from a film of this nature. From the diaper-changing scene, to the fart jokes, and to the very dumb plot twist in the middle of the film. I mean the film doesn’t even try to give an effort to make anything different or fresh, it’s just the same old formula used.

The script is really bad here as almost every single cliched line you can think of, well it plays out the same exact way in here.

The main problem with this film is that Disney was behind it. In the first few minutes several people are blown up or shot including the father and lead of the film. Within a few minutes, all this is forgotten and the bad diaper jokes start. With its very aimless direction I didn’t feel like this film was inspired at all.

Diesel, much to his charm actually brings this film up a couple of notches. I mean I will say he uses his charm very well, and for a lot of the scenes it looked like he was game for the most part. I liked how he was able to play a parody of the character people think of him always playing, and I give him a lot more respect because of that.

Consensus: Vin Diesel’s charm works a bit, but cannot overbear this un-original, formulaic, and overall non reasonable film.

2.5/10=SomeOleBullShit!!!

Everything is Illuminated (2005)

Elijah Wood will never be able to live down his role as Frodo no matter how good he is.

A young American Jewish man begins an exhausting quest — aided by a naïve Ukranian translator — to find the righteous gentile woman who saved his grandfather when his small Ukranian village (along with most of the populace) was obliterated during the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941. Stars Elijah Wood, Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin. Liev Schreiber directs.

The film is based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, and telling just by the premise you wouldn’t think that there would be time for some humor, when really there are some actually funny moments.

The film blends a lot of funny absurdest comedy with its very dramatic undertones. I mean its a different type of comedy that does feel a bit dry and dark, but at times it really connects, but then at times it doesn’t quite hit the mark but it does lighten up the mood.

What is equally surprising is that it is not a comedy. It is, in fact, a touching and poignant story that celebrates the importance of remembrance, the power of secrets and the meaning of friendship. It does this by creating unforgettable characters and placing them in a historically rich environment.

The problem with this film is that I felt like way too many parts were just put in to just be artsy. Schreiber’s directorial debut does seem inspired and is actually impressive, but it shows way too many times he was going for the different and articulate look rather than just sticking with the original source material.

I didn’t like how the first 2/3’s of the film was based on ironic situational comedy, and then by the last 30 minutes was switched into this very depressing Holocaust drama. I think this turn right by the last act changed way too much about the film, and should have kept with its whimsical taste the whole way through.

Wood does give a pretty good performance here but doesn’t feel authentic enough. I feel like those glasses should have been removed from his character, cause not only were they a bit distracting, they just made his character look too much like a comedic effect person.

Consensus: Though it is pretty hit and miss with its whimsical flavor, Everything is Iluminated has a nice poignant story, that shows Schreiber can direct.

6.5/10=Rental!!

Closer (2004)

Jesus these people all need to get a room!

Director Mike Nichols exposes the ugly core hiding behind the slick veneer of four beautiful people and their tangled personal relationships in this drama based on the hit Broadway play. A photographer (Julia Roberts) seems content with her boyfriend (Clive Owen), and a romantic (Jude Law) adores his quirky beloved (Natalie Portman). But when two of them embark on an illicit affair, a cascade of betrayal ensues.

This film is a lot of vicious and sadistic romantic themes all rolled up into one movie. People are constantly cheating on each other left and right, and you have no idea who’s with who, who did what, and most of all how long has this been going on.

The one thing I liked about this film is that from the beginning you think you can point out who the bad guys are and who the good guys are right away, when really their all bad. They all each have these sexual desires that end up messing the other person’s life over. They always constantly talk about telling the truth and being honest with each other, when all they do is lie to each other.

However, the movie seems to suffer from a kind of narcolepsy. In certain cuts, you are fast forward in time and at first you’re unsure if you’ve gone forward of backwards. Luckily after the second such cut you realize the movie is progressive with no flash backs. Thus everything is within context with the previous scene.

Also, there are times when you do feel a bit like this film is staged, probably because it was based on a play. But, some times I felt like the scenes were honestly not genuine and since they were all about talking I didn’t feel like they did much other than that.

I will say one thing that the screenplay is very well-written. Wanting to know positions, acts, and thoughts during that act of sexual coupling – of which there are no visuals, it’s all in the dialogue. This is some brutally honest dialogue that’s all about deceit, sex, and most of all being true to one another.

The screenplay would be nothing without its great performances from its actors. I liked a lot of people in the cast but mostly Clive Owen, who does one of the best darker roles hes ever played. Honestly, he is so hell-bent on his love with Roberts that he will stop at nothing to get her back.  There is a point where Natalie Portman seems to pick up some of Julia Robert’s acting quirks, but this might be similar styles or synergy of the two actresses – It’s just such a joy to see her act again after her impression of a robot in Star Wars movies.

But in the end you feel dismantled by the fact that these people never should be in a relationship if they can control their impulses. And then you realize that these impulses are not only theirs but yours “you just haven’t acted on them – yet”.

Consensus: Closer at times feels too staged and a bit confusing, but has some brutally honest dialogue all about love and deciet, that would be nothing without the superb performances from its cast.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Nothing But Trouble (1991)

Yeah this really is some trouble!

Stock market millionaire Chris Thorne (Chevy Chase) and investment lawyer Diane Lightson (Demi Moore) are headed to Atlantic City when they take the wrong exit off the New Jersey Turnpike. A local cop (John Candy) stops them for speeding in a curious town, where they’re brought before 106-year-old Judge Alvin Valkenheiser (Dan Aykroyd). But the old man’s punishment turns out to be as bizarre as he is.

The Oxford English dictionary needs to get to work inventing new words to describe how bad this movie was. Honestly, the film was advertised as a comedy, and that scares me cause it shows that the English language is running out of things to say.

The film has so many scenes where all these crazy ass creatures just pop out of nowhere. First-time director Aykroyd honestly rips off every single movie that has a creature or some disgusting thing in it, and puts them in this film which just really ruins that legacy.

Not only is the film very very unfunny but the look is just so depressing as well. Nothing looks bright or happy in the film, it just looks at dark and gllomy where nothing fun happens at all.

I feel bad for the cast who had to actually star in this, but even for anybody that watches this it is just really a chain wreck that shouldn’t be watched by a single person if they want to live a happy life.

0/10=Stay Away!!

Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire (2009)

Not quite what I was expecting.

Viciously abused by her mother (Mo’Nique) and pregnant by her father, Harlem teen Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) has an unexpected chance at a different life when she enrolls in an alternative school. Teacher Blu Rain (Paula Patton) encourages her, but Precious must battle unimaginable barriers everywhere in her life. Lee Daniels directs his drama that features appearances by Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz.

So I’ve been basically wanting to see this film forever, and now that I finally have got to, I’m just wondering what all this crazy buzz is about.

The film is highly grim. This poor girl’s life is just so upsetting and miserable that at times it was just hard to watch. I mean just the idea of this girl having her 2nd daughter from her father, byt then her mom being the biggest bitch ever, makes us feel even worse.

Lee Daniels brings an almost psychedelic quality to the film through Precious’ eyes as a way of escapism from the cruelty of life. But where there is pain, there is always hope and this is why the movie evolves into a harrowing film where education brings Precious acceptance, independence, and hope for a better life.

The only problem was that I didn’t feel any emotional strife to this film like everybody was talking about. I felt bad for this girl and wanted her to do better, but I wasn’t so into it. I feel like the film dives too much into the grim reality of things without showing more of how Precious gets a long with her life.

The message at the end of the film didn’t really look like it fit in this film. The portrayal, though powerful, of these people I felt like they were a bit stereotypical. Always saying the n-word, or just being down right dirty didn’t look like it was doing anything right for African Americans.

Sidibe gives the performance that most shy actors would over-play, but instead when she loses control of her emotions, oh she really does. The best here however is Mo’Nique. She gives the most riveting and scariest performance I have seen in a long time from any star. She is filled with so much hate and anger, that every time she was exploding I was so afraid of what she was doing. The other performances from Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz are actually pretty good, and make good supporting roles.

Consensus: Precious is a grim but sometimes lively tale filled with imagination, and great performances from its cast, but doesn’t succeed fully with its ending and message.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

It’s Complicated (2009)

Could not put that disturbing poster of Alec Baldwin and his chest hair, just too disgusting.

Ten years after their divorce, Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin) enjoy an amicable friendship. When the two unite for their son’s college graduation, their romance is rekindled. But Jake is married, and Jane’s architect, Adam (Steve Martin), has a thing for her. Now cheating on the younger woman for whom he left Jane, Jake wants his ex-wife back. But Jane’s busy getting to know Adam.

The movie is directed by Something’s Gotta Give director Nancy Meyers, who once again shows that she can make these bitter-sweet romantic comedies with a cast that just seems way too old.

The film isn’t funny all the time as the trailers and previews would have you guess. More of the film is actually dedicated to some good played out dramatic scenes. In it’s mellow, observant way the film hits some good notes with authentic feeling.

The main theme here is basically about getting old, and if ever loving again. Looking back on your life if and when your 60, and thinking if you did everything right in your life, and if you can go back and change it once and all over again.

My main gripe with Meyers is that I feel like her feminism plays too much of a part in this movie. Jane has pretty much the perfect life before the movie starts in my eyes. She owns a fantastic bakery, has a huge house, is having an affair with her ex while dating a man who is so sensitive he actually states that her age is his favorite thing about her, and has all too perfect kids. There is actually a scene where all the children (including the son) gather around and huddle up on the bed crying about their mother and father possibly getting back together. They are always trying to help their mother and everyone knows that kids aren’t really like that.

While the first act of this movie is phenomenal, the second act is just ok, and the third act completely falls flat. The first act is so great because it’s mainly Jack and Jane rediscovering their love and the hilarious circumstances that ensue. Once the Adam character came into play, I felt the movie went downhill. It tried to hard to become a romantic comedy when it should’ve just maintained its course and become a full-on raunchy sex comedy about older people.

Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin made comedic gold every single time they are on screen together. The scenes with them are just genuinly funny as anything and make this plot even funnier. John Krasinski is also in this film, who much to my surprise steals the show every time he has a line and plays it real well. Steve Martin isn’t quite given much to be his funny, cooky self we are used to him being, and I was a bit dissapointed. Though we get to see him one scene going back to his old ways, it doesn’t stay like that.

Consensus: It’s Complicated can be kind of a complicated movie to get through at points, but has great performances from its cast, and some genuine funny and also heart-wrenching scenes.

8/10=Matinee!!!

The Man Without a Face (1993)

In order to prep for Edge of Darkness, I’m going to give this Mel Gibson treat a try.

Against long odds, a young boy (Nick Stahl) works hard to pass the entrance exam that will allow him to enter his late father’s alma mater. The handicap is that he’s ignored by his mother and sisters. So, he asks Justin Mcleod (Mel Gibson), an ex-teacher who’s horribly disfigured, to tutor him. As they work hard together to prepare for the examination, the man and boy forge a friendship that could heal the wounds of both their pasts.

This is Mel Gibson’s second attempt to show that hey he can act and have a lot of heart, rather than just being the action hunk like in all those Lethal Weapon films.

The film I will give it one thing does have a lot of heart. It creates this relationship, that at times is questionable, between an older man who has had this accident and a young confused kid. I felt like this movie does bring out some heart-felt scenes between the two and I felt like the scenes of Gibson teaching were some of the best in the film.

However, this film does get a little bit too much for a long time. The teenage angst that Stahl faces comes off and on about 100 times in this film and one incident after another, I just got annoyed of his moods changing every time. Even worse was his family who is probably one of the worst I’ve seen cause they do nothing but tease this kid, and then they wonder why he is always acting up.

There is also no freshness to this story. It is probably the same story you have seen all the time with the man having problems with his life, and the boy with his, I just didn’t sense any originality. There were no suprises when it came to the story and the way it was handled because, though i thought some speeches were good, almost all of the scenes ended the way I thought were going to.

Gibson does a very good job as both director and lead actor. He handles this movie with little inspiration, but also gives a very heart-felt and believable performance. But the best is Stahl who later on would get bigger roles, but shows that at an early age he should be getting even bigger roles because he does shine here as the kid.

Consensus: The Man Without a Face has inspired direction and acting from Gibson with some heart-felt scenes, but isn’t very original and comes off as way too predictable at points.

5/10=Rental!!

City of God (2002)

Brazil is such a fucked up place to be!

Buscapé (Alexandre Rodrigues) is frightened he’ll end up like the countless others around him — troubled, violent or dead. But his saving grace is his photographer’s eye, through which the stories of several people who live in his forsaken Cidade de Deus unfold. Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund direct this sobering look at life inside a Rio de Janeiro housing project, reputed to be one of the most dangerous parts of an otherwise magical city.

Before I start this review I just want to say one thing, and that is that this film none other than simply a masterpiece. I never thought I was going to be as astonished with this film as I was, and I’m so glad I’ve seen this.

Director Fernando Meirelles does a great job at constructing this film. Its spans over three decades, and features so many twists and turns with many different characters that you barely even know. He goes back and forth between decades without you even realizing he has, and your not confused one bit by all these characters and their reason for being in the film.It has this look of Pulp Fiction, and Memento as it shows an event happening but from different view points so that we fully understand what and why it happened.

The film is utterly disturbing. There are plenty of scenes that just contain random and innocent people being killed, women being killed, and the most disturbing children being killed. It’s all so very very disturbing but in a way it doesn’t feel exploited. I started to get used to the killing and I felt like I was there with them as this was happening. The violence is relentless and mostly done in a casual way so it doesn’t quite surprise anyone. The gritty look mixed with a lot of the drug abuse, and violence doesn’t feel fake at all, it effects you and makes you understand what these people go through on a day to day basis.

The cinematography is something that will really get you watching as well. The way the camera moves along with the action and the scenes it gets you in a sense of energy, and I’m kind of sure that some of the techniques used here were somehow used in Slumdog Millionaire, but I’m just saying. Also, the writing here is top-notch and it all feels like actual real dialouge and spoken by true and real people.

The best part of this movie is the characters that inhabit it. From the beginning we understand who these people are just based on by the actions and their morality choosing. Enough screen-time is given to enough of these characters for us to fully relate to them and understand who they are as a whole person, instead of just these savage gangsters. The acting here is really something to watch. They have ll these little kids from about 6 and 7, to about young men of like 18,19, and 20, but every one act as if they were all natural-born thespians. The best performance here and probably the most sinister is Douglas Silva who plays the main bad guy Li’l Ze and does an amazing job at being one of the biggest villains in any film that i have seen in a long time.

Consensus: City Of God is a masterpiece. It has wonderful and inspired direction, with a gritty and violent look that is disturbing but doesn’t feel exploited in any way, and great characters that are backed by increcible performances. This is one of the greatest films I have seen in a long time, and anyone that likes good movies should give this one a try, cause you will not be dissapointed.

10/10=Full Pricee!!!

BTW: Here is just one of the most Iconic Images in cinema history that will soon be hanging somewhere in my room very shortly.

Foul Play (1978)

Now I can see where Kate Hudson gets her looks!

Goldie Hawn shines as gentle librarian Gloria Mundy, who finds her peaceful and slightly boring existence shaken when she uncovers a plan to assassinate the Pope in this action-comedy inspired by Alfred Hitchcock thrillers. Fearing for her life, Gloria elicits the help of local cop, Tony Carlson (Chevy Chase), who’s game enough to take on the strange case. Good thing, too, as matters morph from odd to bizarre and love blooms between the two.

This film is weird in a way cause it combines all these different elements of film. It features a mixture of comedy/thriller genre with a bit of Hitchcock.

I think the film fails at a lot of the comedy its trying to hit here in the film. Some jokes do hit the money, and actually bring out a couple of laughs, but there are some that are just bad. By the end of the film there was way too much physical comedy to make me laugh, like honestly how many times can we see a guy getting hit in the balls?

The film’s run time is quite long actually almost hitting the two-hour mark which I felt was not needed at all. I thought this blending did work out in some ways but in others it just failed. I think the thrilling aspect was actually too dark, and by adding this witty comedy kind of had a bad taste.

Goldie Hawn does give off a good performance here and shows that she can be funny, cooky, and also very weird but make it seem believable. Chevy Chase I was surprised by cause he’s not very funny here. Yeah, you can see the charm that would help him out later on in his life, but it just doesn’t click here. My favorite supporting act is Dudley Moore from Arthur, he gives off that zany character we know him from and makes a lot of the moments that are serious, funny.

Consensus: Foul Play has some funny moments and good performances, but fails with the genre blending of thriller and comedy, and runs on too long with way too much witless physical humor.

5/10=Rental!!

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

One of the worst planned out plays ever!

In the 1930s, as labor strikes erupt across the country, New York City launches a dramatic cultural revolution of its own. Orson Welles (Angus Macfadyen) stages the controversial titular play — a leftist manifesto. Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades) paints a socialist allegory on the walls of Rockefeller Center. And Margherita Sarfatti (Susan Sarandon) gives Da Vinci masterworks to any millionaire who’ll fund her war effort on Mussolini’s behalf.

Now this film has an insanely huge star-studded cast. It is honestly filled with some comedic and dramatic greats that it’s hard to say it almost doesn’t work, but in reality it kind of doesn’t.

It often talks down to the viewer, as it assumes that no one outside of the film and professional theater industry could know about these events or the mood of the nation at this time. The movie’s radical stance is that artists should get to do their art without being destroyed by mean rich people, and aren’t we just wonderful for agreeing with that?

The film puts all these ideas or radicalism, and communism in the film that it makes you wonder is this even about the play at all? I asked myself that many countless of times, I just wish that the film actually focused more on the play, cause I found those scenes to be more entertaining than the ones that were all about the themes of communism and radicalism.

There are some very good things about this film though. I did like the setting and I thought that was really welld done of how it actually did look like the depression era. Also, the script although packed with a lot of combustion and crazyness still does bring out some good ideas, and actually funny humor. It has very dramatic moments, but is soon brought out by it’s comedic factor which works very well at times.

The best part of this film is the acting from the cast. The film does have that great ensemble-cast who each fits their part respectively very well. Tuturro gives a very solid performance showing the anger that has always been inside of him, and Watson shows she can use her charm to probe to still be a cute young character. The best of the side performances I think was Bill Murray who plays a ventriloquist, and brings a lot of humor to the film but also the heart that the film needed.

Consensus: Cradle Will Rock is over-stuffed with way too many themes, and different stories that don’t jell together very well, but has a very witty screenplay, and a wonderfully acted ensemble cast.

6/10=Rental!!!

Blood Work (2002)

Clint showing he was going to die so early in his career.

Retired FBI director Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), feeble from a recent heart transplant, is hired by Graciela Rivers (Wanda De Jesus) to investigate the death of her sister, Gloria — who is, coincidentally, the donor of McCaleb’s new heart. McCaleb soon deduces that Gloria was murdered by a serial killer he was trailing for years while in the FBI … but can the elderly agent muster the strength to hunt down the killer and stop him for good?

This is once again one of those films starring and directed by Eastwood, who always tries to show these complex movies with a different take all the time.

The one thing about this film is that it’s all based on a real-life character that doesn’t seem fictional at all. Instead of playing these invincible heroes, Eastwood is a man that has faults in his life, with a worsening heart condition that always seem to get in his way.

The one thing about this film is that it isn’t about guessing who did the case, it’s more of about the relationships that build because of this case. This adds a more human element to the film of where we can see all these heart-warming elements put together.

I had some problems with this film however. Right from the beginning I knew who the villain was. I’m not going to give anything away but its pretty obvious who it is, and when it actually comes up of who it is the surprise element isn’t there. Much of the action was completely unbelievable. One of my little quirks is to be absolutely annoyed at Clint’s consistent ability to brandish firearms like a pro, then make comments that prove he knows nothing about them.

Clint does do a good job here as usual as this old, run-down, cop that could just drop at any moment and he plays it real well here. The best supporting act is Jeff Daniels who brings a lot of a comedic element to the film without acting too much like a goof and throwing us off the whole movie.

Consensus: Blood Work has good performances and nice tales of morality, but falls in with too much predictable plot lines, and unbelievable action.

5.5/10=Rental!!!

The Hurricane (1999)

Who can Denzel not play!

Denzel Washington lands a knockout punch as Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, a prizefighter who — at the zenith of his boxing career — finds himself wrongly convicted of a triple homicide and sentenced to three life terms. While in prison, Carter pens his autobiography, which inspires Brooklyn teen Lesra Martin (Vicellous Reon Shannon) and a trio of Canadian advocates (Liev Schreiber, John Hannah and Deborah Unger) to help prove Carter’s innocence.

From the first 30 minutes of this film it didn’t prove to be anything special. Actually, if anything it just proved to be a bit sloppy. I didn’t understand what the intention of how to tell this story was, but it started to grow on me.

The one thing that this film does is that it doesn’t take the old cliche route of telling the story of The Hurricane from birth all the way up through his years as a boxer. We get a short glimpse of how his childhood was ruined, and then we go into his older life before he was put in prison. I think this added a new sense of story-telling for these kinds of stories and works in more ways than one.

The film is very powerful with it’s statement. It does bring out a big sense of heart within you and actually does get you into the story as it did for me. You see yourself cheering for The Hurricane as he’s going through his miserable life.

The film did have some lows however. I think that Director Norman Jewison should have focused more on how The Hurricane survived being inside of those bars, and how he changed as a person. Also, the film’s facts are a little or too way of. I think that the film creates these ideas of what really happened and spins them in their own way for the dramatic effect. In some ways, I didn’t mind this but I know how the real story goes and it’s not quite like this.

Denzel once again plays his ass out! This is one of Denzel’s best acting performances that I’ve seen from him, as he shows that he can play a character with such anger and rage, and let it all out and make it seem believable. I didn’t like how they casted Dan Hedaya and had him acting like such a bad-guy just because he looked like one.

Consensus: The Hurricane is a powerful film that boasts a fresh way of story-telling and a excellent performance from Washington, but seems to suffer from some inaccuracies, and a slight bit of misfires.

8/10=Matinee!!!

The King of Comedy (1982)

Celebrities: sometimes we love them, sometimes we hate them, but mostly we’re obsessed with them.

Director Martin Scorsese hits a satirical bulls-eye in this black comedy that explores the absurd lengths to which nebbish Rupert Pupkin (Robert De Niro) will go to land a spot on the TV talk show of his idol, Jerry Langford (Jerry Lewis). Pupkin believes that one appearance on Langford’s show will be his ticket to stardom, so he kidnaps his idol and sets into motion a chain of events you have to see to believe!

The film has a comedy look in the title and in the poster but if anything it’s a lot more of a serious look into the world of being a fan.

The film shows Pupkin as a very strange, obsessive guy who will never take no for an answer. The one thing I liked in this film was that it gives you this strange claustrophobic feeling within this guy’s head. You see how he lives and goes off on talking about celebrities, and it actually makes you think about some of the biggest fans in the world, are sometimes the creepiest.

The way the film is structured is to show us to what stardom can do to you. Our desire to become so famous is so strong, and so intense that it makes us delusional, and think of things that are in the real world and what are not.

De Niro does gives probably one of his most bizarre performances of his career, and shows that he can be so uncomfortable, and strange that it can actually start to have an effect on us. Jerry Lewis gives a good performance here as the celebrity that has so much anger to hide that when it comes out, he goes really really insane.

The ending is what kind of ruined it for me in a way. I think that the ending could have been a bit more clear to its approach to its subject material and actually had me a bit confused. Was this reality or fiction?

Consensus: An unexplained ending, but The King Of Comedy has two equally-matched performances, very dark look into the world of obsession, and a hidden gem from Scorsese.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Hudson Hawk (1991)

I really wish I didn’t have to take time out of my life and watch this, honestly.

This Bruce Willis vehicle puts its star in the shoes of Hudson Hawk, a skilled cat burglar who times his robberies by singing show tunes. After being released from jail, Hawk wants to do nothing more than hang out in cafés, but criminal financiers Darwin and Minerva Mayflower (Richard E. Grant and Sandra Bernhard) blackmail Hawk into one last job — stealing a Leonardo Da Vinci device that turns lead into gold.

This film tries so so hard to be different. With its little gags, unrealistic happenings, and over-zealous characters, the film tries to act so zany and goofy that you have got to like it. too bad that is not the idea here.

I mean I understand the reason for being over-the-top, but come on, you can’t be this crazy. I mean they have the crooks singing while taking away the painting from Da Vinci. I mean stop singing and get the freakin’ picture, and get on with your lives.

The writing starts off from zero, and barely ever makes that attempt to get themselves out of that slump. There wasn’t one line in this film that I actually found humorous. The people actually watching this film will just feel so distant cause we never really know who these characters are, and why they say the things that they do.

Willis is the man! But cannot do anything to get rid of the bad taste in this film. Everybody in this film seems like their just trying one-up each other and make the other one seem less funny by their own little speech. None of this works and it just ends up turning into complete and utter junk.

Consensus: Willis tries, but Hudson Hawk is horribly and confusingly written, characters that aren’t interesting, and a plot that tries so hard to be different but fails and ends up just being plain stupid.

0/10=Stay Away!!!!!!

Hard Eight (1997)

PT taking a page out of Tarantino’s book.

Director Paul Thomas Anderson’s first film charts the relationship between reckless youth John (John C. Reilly) and world-weary card shark Sydney (Philip Baker Hall), who takes John under his wing after showing him how to exploit the casinos’ perks. Years later, the surrogate father and son are successful gamblers until John falls for a cocktail waitress (Gwyneth Paltrow) and gets mixed up with a shady stranger (Samuel L. Jackson).

The film looks like as if its going to be your usual gambling drama film, but then suddenly switches into the mode of suspense thriller, which totally took me by suprise.

The one extraordinary  thing that this film does is that it does focus so much on the thrilling aspect but on the characters at hand. PT Anderson gives us these interesting and compelling characters who from the get-go we know nothing about, but want to know so much more as the film goes on.

PT Anderson really does show off some of his best work here, as he uses the camera to make so many things work. For example, he uses the camera to move with the same action as somebody handing another person a paper, instead of just the usual thing in big-time Hollywood, and blowing it up. Also, there is a lot of very good writing here as it seems all so realistic as it goes along with the scene.

The problem with this film is that its pacing in the middle is a little off. The beginning is energetic and entertaining, but in the middle the film starts to drag. The ending I had a lot of problems with, one because it ends with this random bolt of violence that we don’t see once throughout the whole film until then, and two because it just seems like the big twist at the end was a little tacked on. I will say it did throw me off a bit, but it didn’t feel right in this story and just added on to put in more shocking things to happen.

Baker Hall is just without a doubt so mesmerizing in this role, and I’m just so surprised to see how some performance of this nature, and of this talent couldn’t land him any more big roles. Samuel L. is basically as crazy as usual but I would have liked to see more from his character until he just randomly starts more combustion near the end of the film.

Consensus: Hard Eight is an impressive debut from PT Anderson, with great performances, catchy writing, and a wonderful character study, but misses the mark with its pacing, and its random use of its ending.

7.5/10=Rental!!!

The Road (2009)

After reading the novel over the summer, finally got to seeing this.

In the near future, the world has been virtually destroyed. From the ash-covered, post-apocalyptic remains of Appalachia, the Father (Viggo Mortensen) and Son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) take to the road in search of a better life. The Father’s health is failing, lending urgency to a journey impeded by nomadic bands of cannibalistic humans.

The Road is a film, much like the Cormac McCarthy novel, that is incredibly bleak and depressing. It is set in a world that is just full of disaster and death, and with having a son-father duo in the middle of it made it all the more emotional.

The set pieces really do look great here as I would have imagined. Director John hillcoat chose not to use CGI for the world which is a lot better considering it makes the disaster itself a lot more genuine with its look. Also, the film thankfully doesn’t tell us what happened at all to the world when the disasters started. This allows you to add your own horrific apacolypse happenings in your mind, and from what I was imagining was quite freaky.

However, I felt that way too many times Hillcoat was trying way too hard to win a bunch of Oscars. By putting all these little heart-warming scenes, and over direction at points, I didn’t feel the heart and nature of the novel come out in this film.

The film is bleak but not quite bleak enough. I felt like it was just going through the motions of when and how bleak and depressing it had to be. I feel like their giving the audience a lot much more of an easier time to sink all this time in, and not be quite true the heart and soul of the novel.

Mortensen is spectacular in this role as the dad here. He shows that he can handle a movie where there are barely any other humans, and make it seem believable. Kodi Smit-McPhee is surprisingly very well here as the son, as you can feel the confusion but also the despair of this poor child in his performance.

Consensus: The Road benefits from the commitment to the Cormac McCarthy novel, with powerful performances from its cast, but doesn’t quite capture the soul of the novel and feels like its just reading the letters.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Gomorrah (2009)

When realism takes its way into the world of mobsters.

The intertwining tales of a delivery boy, a tailor, a businessman and two cocky teenagers form the fabric of this gritty and lyrical examination of the influential Neapolitan mob known as the Camorra.

Before watching this film you must know that this is almost nothing like the usual gangster flick, American audiences are used to seeing. This whole film doesn’t seem fake, and shot as if it were happening right in front of your eyes in real life.

Time and time again I have seen films that have totally romanticized the mob, here, that is not the case at all. The film is so gritty and just looks so real as if it were a documentary on Italian mobsters. The setting doesn’t feel fake at all, with a lot more genuine sights of the slums of lower Italy.

When watching this you have to be incredibly patient. The hard thing is that you don’t know where half of these characters come from but later on in the movie you finally do, so its very rewarding. The problem I had with this film was that too many times did I feel like some of the most interesting stories should have been given more time. I wish the story of the two bone-headed teens were given a lot more time then what they were given, because I felt the heart of the film lied in that story.

The violence, although not as massive and graphic as other mafia movies, has the same effect as I’ve seen it in other films. Where a lot of previous mafia films take an almost artistic approach to death and violence (i.e. Sonny’s death in The Godfather), Gomorrah shows this in its purest form: violent, sudden and emotionless. Every death in the film comes out of nowhere, charging in with gunshots that made me jump every single time. As the movie goes along, one really understands how suiting the title of Gomorrah fits the film, as a city destroyed by brimstone and fire from God himself.

The film itself is also unique in its cinematography. There were plenty of close-ups and establishing shots that we see in most films, but what made up for its common conventions was the balance in each shot along with some of the unique angles of other shots.

Consensus: Gomorrah is a rocky experience, but is rewarding with is sudden violence, unique way of handling the camera, and just a film that is so gritty that it just all feels real.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

In & Out (1997)

If Philadelphia was a screwball comedy.

When dim-bulb actor Cameron Drake (Matt Dillon) wins an Oscar for playing a gay Marine, he outs his high school drama teacher, Howard Brackett (Kevin Kilne), in his acceptance speech. It all comes as a surprise to Howard — not to mention his long-suffering fiancée, Emily (Joan Cusack). With his wedding just days away, Howard’s under the gun to get everything (ahem) straightened out.

The film is basically a riff on Tom Hanks’ 1994 Oscar speech where he outed his own high-school teacher in front of the whole world. And for some reason I kind of wish it stayed that way.

This movie takes delight in poking fun at stereotypes of many varieties and does it all with a straight face (pardon the pun). There is no mean spirited about the film. Not every joke hits a perfect target, but when it does I laughed out loud.

That was my big problem with this film that a lot of the comedy didn’t actually feel like it hit the right mark it wanted to. The gay jokes kind of did get annoying and didn’t really change for me, and at times made the film even more excruciating to watch.

The film also takes a horrible and way too sympathetic ending that really did kill the movie for me. In my mind, the ending was just a cop-out for not having to show anymore gay things happen. Director Frank Oz has his heart in the right place but it doesn’t quite come out near the ending.

Kline gives a very funny and stellar performance here as Howard, and basically shows he can play the zaniest of characters. However, the best here really is Joan Cusack who every time is on the screen just really did make me laugh even more and more as the film went on. The screen-time for her wasn’t huge but with the time she was given she made the best of it.

Consensus: Doesn’t quite hit the mark with its humor and sympathy, but In & Out does feature funny performances from the cast, and some genuine funny moments that do hit the right spot.

5/10=Rental!!

Invictus (2009)

Its hard for some people to actually play Mandela.

In this drama based on real-life events, director Clint Eastwood tells the story of what happened after the end of apartheid when newly elected president Nelson Mandela used the 1995 World Cup rugby matches to unite his people in South Africa. Based on John Carlin’s book, the film stars Morgan Freeman as Mandela and Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the scrappy South African team that makes a run for the championship.

For me this movie was highly badly advertised. I was expecting by the trailers a film about Mandela, and his struggle to overcome adversity, and somehow adding Matt Damon to the mix. Instead, what i got was just a normal sports drama.

The film is highly inspirational, with some scenes being more powerful than the other, and mostly all of them having to do with overcoming the adversity that struck South Africa so much during these rough and tumble times. I liked how they showed a lot of Mandela, with just pure bluntness of why and how he chose these decisions. There were plenty of scenes by the end of the film that really will make you tear up a bit of just how well it does look.

The only huge problem with this movie is that you have seen it before. Not exactly the way it is, but more of the way it is structured. The sports cliches come right in front of your face very quick into the movie, and by the end I already knew what was going to happen so when it did I wasn’t all that surprised.

I think Eastwood’s direction is very inspired and does some good things here as director, but doesn’t show his best work here. The pace is incredibly slow, and at times you will really lose your attention to this film cause you have just dozed off into la la land. Alos, the rugby scenes could have been a lot more exciting, and could have been done a lot more times than what they were given. I think with any sports movie half of the movies time should be spent on the sport its documenting but this doesn’t do that instead focuses on the politics behind it all.

Freeman does a great job here as Mandela much to my surprise. He brings this presence to the film that is really unmatchable every time he is on the screen, and handles the accent so well to where you don’t think of him as Morgan Freeman. Matt Damon also is very good in this film, but I still couldn’t wrap my head around him being somebody else. I mean hey that’s just me, I just still thought of him as Matt Damon and nothing else really changed my mind.

Consensus: Slow Paced and highly predictable, Invictus offers delightful performances from Damon and Freeman with inspiration, but isn’t Eastwood’s best work.

7/10=Rental!!!

About Schmidt (2002)

Whoever knew Jack could be so damn depressing of an old man.

When insurance actuary Warren Schmidt (Jack Nicholson) retires and his wife dies, he looks for life’s meaning on a road trip to his daughter’s (Hope Davis) upcoming wedding to a waterbed salesman (Dermot Mulroney). But Schmidt can’t seem to get anything right. En route to the wedding, he shares his life through letters with a Tanzanian boy he’s sponsoring for 73 cents a day — and soon, Schmidt discovers renewed purpose.

I remember when I first saw this when I was very young with my grand father, and I didn’t quite understand it. But now that I have grown older I understand it all, and I’m so glad.

This film is mostly all about being old, and accepting your life that you have made for yourself. Sure, it doesn’t seem like such a different idea of themes but the way this film shows it makes it so fresh. Honestly, there are plenty of scenes where I almost caught myself just choking up. There is a great deal of comedy in this movie, but also a wonderful amount of tear-jerking drama as well. Though I’m not a retired old man, I still felt like I could connect to what Schmidt was saying, and it made me feel even more upset, but upset in a good way.

The direction from Alexander Payne is really good here cause he doesn’t label out how we should respond to the actions of Schmidt. Things happen and we are supposed to think about it rather than given this mood of how to think about it. The writing is also very realistic, in how it shows the satirical look at things, with a very dark sense of humor, which gives bigger laughs throughout the whole film.

The one real reason why this film works is because of all the characters that are involved. The film does get a bit slow at points which does take away some interest, but it works in favor. I felt so in love with this character and I knew him inside and out by the end of the film. Nicholson is just so perfect in this role and totally just amerces himself into this person, and although it is one of his most serious roles to date he still makes you laugh with some of his lines. Kathy Bates who plays the other mother-in-law, is so funny and witty, and she does something of how she can just turn her charm on and off without her character even acting like it happened.

The ending in this film is what seals the deal for me. I won’t give anything away but once you see it, it will make you think about your life, and what have you done for others to make a difference.

Consensus: About Schmidt is a bit slow, but features one of the best performances from Nicholson, great realistic writing, and some funny moments balanced with some serious tear-jerking scenes that will make you think all about life in general.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!!

48 Hrs. (1983)

Eddie Murphy’s big-screen debut makes me miss him even more.

Detective Jack Cates (Nick Nolte) is forced to do the unbearable in order to catch a pair of escaped cop killers: He temporarily paroles wisecracking hustler Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) into his custody. The dilemma: This odd couple has only 48 hours to solve the crime before Reggie has to go back to the slammer

This is one of the first films to bring out the buddy-cop genre film, and to be truly honest I don’t really like cop movies as much. They always seem to be too melodramatic for me, and this one wasn’t very different.

The film has so much yelling in it! I mean I think they were trying to get this film to be hilarious by just yelling stupid shit like “That’s my life, Jack”, or making racist comments to Murphy. I don’t know what the whole point of all this yelling was but one thing for certain is that it didn’t quite work just like the whole comedy element.

The jokes in this film weren’t that funny, and very out-dated. I felt like way too many times the film was just looking for these little wise crack jokes, so it would actually make it funny, when really it only had a couple of actually funny scenes.

The shoot outs and action is actually pretty good. I liked the fact that they didn’t shoot their gun about 5o times before they reloaded, it just made it seem a lot more realistic. Also, a lot of the action fast-paced and keeps you excited, I just wish the music wasn’t so damn corny.

The one saving point of this film is the chemistry between Murphy and Nolte. At first, they hate each other and can’t get a long one bit, but second by second they actually start to become good friends and you can tell by these performances. Murphy is very enterataining in this role though he is a lot more serious than usual, but his performance does bring out some highlights in this film.

Consensus: 48 Hrs. is a bit out-dated and not as funny as you would expect, but features some good action, with a pleasent chemistry from Nolte and Murphy.

5.5/10=Rental!!

Up in the Air (2009)

Finally saw it after such a long wait!

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) racks up major miles flying around the country firing employees on behalf of companies. But he faces losing the job he savors to Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) — and losing the ability to escape emotional ties to anything. A connection he builds with Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), however, might change his outlook on the future.

This is the one film when I first saw the trailer, was barely at all impressed. Then after awhile the film started to get huge press, and well finally I gave it a look.

This is the third film from Director Jason Reitman, who has also done Thank You For Smoking and Juno, and gives a lot of his usual trade marks. The writing from Reitman is just flawless as it hits every note right, and makes this film seem so believable. The writing is funny, dark, and also very real which brings a lot more appeal to the film.

The whole problem I had with this film was that the characters never really transform into better and different people. I mean at the end of the film we never see how Clooney has transformed, and the whole ending just ends up being a very awkward execution.

Clooney does bring back the charm that made us fall in love with him early in his career, but he doesn’t go so deep for me. Yeah, he is a guy that understands his job and life, but never shows that he is actually taking it seriously and more of as a joke. Farmiga and Kendrick are great as the supporting cast ladies, and add a lot more romance to the film that doesn’t quite seem needed.

The one thing I really liked about this film that actually does do it for me is that its drama element to the film is genuine. The message that Reitman is trying to show us, doesn’t feel so preachy, and helps the movie I think. This film applies to so much of how Americans are feeling with the falling economy and its just so fresh to get somebody bring this message up so well.

Consensus: Up in the Air doesn’t convey the emotional depth it could have, but features very realistic writing, and a message from Reitman that isn’t preachy as much as it is true.

8/10=Matinee!!!!!

Straw Dogs (1971)

Controversial back in 1971, not much has changed in today’s world.

Astrophysicist David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) and wife, Amy (Susan George), move to England to get away from the violence in America. But the Sumners learn that things are no better on the other side of the pond when local construction workers intimidate and exploit the couple. The trouble turns into a bloody battle when David — who discovers a feral and vicious side of himself — is forced to defend his home after Amy gets raped.

So this film caught my attention cause it was released along the same time as A Clockwork Orange, and Dirty Harry which were both violent films. And somehow, this one sticks in my mind the most.

First of all the story is just so rich. It starts off as a normal story of a couple who moved to Ireland, and then things just get out of hand one by one, and then it gets crazy. You really feel the need to cheer Hoffman on as he is the total innocent victim in all of this.

Director Sam Peckinpah really does give his best and most controversial effort. He shows this violence in such a way to where its not being exploited but as a symbol for the violence that was uprising in the world. The last 30 minutes will just have you so amazed as to how beautiful this scene is, even though it is so damn violent.

The violence didn’t really turn me off that much, if at all. I wanted to see this Irish assholes (sorry dad) just dead and in such a horrible way too. The one disturbing scene is the infamous rape scene which will surely test your boundries of what you think you have seen before in film. The scene is very very disturbing, and will actually have you turning away from the camera.

Dustin Hoffman is on the top of his game here as the nerd who has always been running away his whole life, and finally gets a chance to face his fear and does it so well. His wife played by Susan George does surprisingly well, especially in the rape scene where at first she is in pain, but soon starts to be pleasured, and was played so realistically and well.

The only problem I had with this film was one part where when she gets raped, and doesn’t tell her husband about it. He just wonders and tells them to all stop working there without him really knowing what happened in the first place.

Consensus: With controversial violence and rape, Straw Dogs is a beautiful character study, that shows violence happening in such a way that isn’t disgusting, but more of genuine. One of Peckinpah’s best efforts, and Hoffman in top form.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!

The Book of Eli (2010)

It seems like for all these disaster films their always choosing the black leading man, first Will Smith, and now Denzel, you better watch yourself Samuel L.!

In post-apocalyptic 2043, Eli (Denzel Washington) guards a Bible, that, to his knowledge, is the last copy in the world. Eli believes this book can provide knowledge that could redeem society and help people understand the source of their pain. The despot (Gary Oldman) of a small makeshift town plans to take possession of the book and use it to further his cause.

The Book of Eli is yet another movie in a long line of Post-Apocalyptic movies. What does this have that’s different and better than the others. Well other than the power of the lord behind it…

The Hughes Brothers return to the screen after almost an 8 year absence, and must i say they basically show no rust. They bring a lot of stylish fun to this film without trying to be too much like other post-apocalyptic films we see so much of today. The use of non-color in this film really do give us a sense of just a dark world full of chaos, and most of all despair.

The action was very awesome to see, as probably each of them are shown in about 20 seconds and are shot with such detail, and actuality that it all feels real.

The problem I had with this film is that it doesn’t add any new ideas to the genre. I felt like the usual every man, woman, animal, and cannibal for themselves story was very obvious. Also, by the end of the film it seems to get a little way too preachy with the Christianity talk. I mean I get it, faith is what brought you here, but also did those sweet ass kicking moves as well. There is also a bit way too much use of the slow-mo in this film, and I felt just took away from the film.

Granted however, the film looks very very good, in a very bleak way. The film is basically filmed as if it were in a desert, but by the end some of the shots are filmed so well, and so magnificently that you will become so astonished by the look of this world.

The acting is also amazing. Denzel brings out another one of his solid bad-ass mofo characters but with more heart, and he becomes a very believable guy rather than just your normal super hero. Gary Oldman also gives a very good side performance as the bad guy as you can tell from the get-go you already hate him. But Mila Kunis is the one who is disappointing, cause honestly I don’t know how anyone can take the chick from That 70s Show and who voices Meg Griffin can honestly take her seriously, I know I can’t.

Consensus: Though a bit preachy and not highly fresh to the genre, The Book Of Eli favors from stylized direction from The Hughes Brothers, effective performances, and some very fun action that will surely entertain.

8/10=Matinee!!!

187 (1997)

Crazy Samuel L. as a high school teacher that don’t take shit!

Dedicated teacher Trevor Garfield (Samuel L. Jackson) fights for his life after one of his high school students attacks him. Tired of the gang warfare in the New York City school system, Garfield moves to California to teach there, thinking it must be a less hostile environment. But not only is the school violence worse, the administrators do nothing to protect staff members and students … until Garfield takes matters into his own hands.

In any film you watch nowadays Samuel L. Jackson is always playing a different role every time. But he still always has that same old crazy ass look to him, but in this one not so much.

In the film there are some effective scenes that actually quite do work. There are a lot of themes about loyalty, respect, and most of all violence in school. Things get out of hand very quickly in this film, but they never quite get too insane like I would have imagined them to be.

The movie is a depressing story of the realities of a good teacher trying to do their job within the very political public school system. A system where lawsuits and lack of discipline on the part of the students causes a cesspool of academia to exist. Survival is more important in the inner city school. Academics are ridiculed.

At times, the film did really lose me cause I felt like that parts didn’t seem very realistic at all, and were just put up cause the screenplay writers wanted to add some dramatic elements to the story. The compelling factor left the film as soon as they dived away from the class room and into the streets, and nothing ever really changed.

Samuel L. Jackson does a great job in this film as the strong hearten high school teacher torn between violence and education. He shows this character not to be your usual fight-against-the-odds teacher, and shows how teachers can get so fed up. Clifton Collins JR., does one of the better jobs as the Cholo gang leader and proves to actually have some talent rather than just be your average typical high-school film gangster.

Consensus: 187 is at times effective much ado to the strong performance from its cast, mostly Samuel L. Jackson, but at times loses peoples interest and doesn’t have enough effective scenes.

6/10=Rental!!

The Bridge (2006)

If your thinking about suicide don’t watch this!

Over the span of a year, cameras capture tormented souls trying to kill themselves by leaping from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge in this provocative documentary that underscores the landmark’s rep as the world’s most popular suicide destination. Through poignant interviews with family, friends and eyewitnesses, director Eric Steel’s film reveals a common thread of depression, despair and chronic mental illness.

It is easy to be repulsed by being made to watch people contemplating suicide, and then, after an agonizing wait, seeing them jump and hit the water. But I have no problem with this film, ethically. It is a rare glimpse into the mystery of suicide, and into the kind of person who feels drawn towards death. And jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is not just any death: it truly is something extraordinary.

The interviews are very heart-felt and at time while listening to them tell their stories of a loved one lost you may start to think about anybody you know that comitted suicide, I know I did. The interviews with the friends and relatives of suicides are sad and very touching, revealing the hole that a suicide leaves in other people’s lives, all the unanswerable questions. Even more remarkable is the account of the boy who survived jumping.

The only problem with these interviews is that a lot of the time they never served any real moral purpose other than “just don’t commit suicide”. They didn’t quite serve any real purpose as to what would be the right thing to do, and how they could have dealt with this problem better since, it seems almost every time they knew about it going to happen but chose to do nothing about it.

After awhile the film starts to act like a snuff film. I mean showing some deaths on camera are effective, but showing over about 23 deaths on camera, that’s when it starts to get out of hand. The camera work for the deaths were real choppy too, and you couldn’t actually even see the guy fully falling in just the splash of the water.

Consensus: The material is disturbing and effective, with plenty of powerful interviews, but the film didn’t serve any moral purpose, and when showing these people going to commit suicide they have no reason.

7/10=Rental!!

Wall Street (1987)

Is greed always good??

Enterprising stockbroker Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) falls under the enticing spell of Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), an unabashedly greedy Wall Street arbitrageur. Gekko takes Fox under his wing, tutoring his charge in the unscrupulous tactics that put the corporate raider on top. But when Gekko embroils his protégé in an insider-trading scheme that may risk the jobs of kith and kin, Fox develops a conscience and decides to turn the tables.

Director Oliver Stone, as many of you may know is one of my favorite directors of all-time. I like if not love a lot of his stuff so when I heard about this film, and how Douglas won a Best Oscar, I was ready for a wonderful film. Instead I got a bore-fest.

If you are annoyed by shallow anti capitalism good-versus-evil plots, avoid this one. On its face, this film bashes illegal insider trading. But it goes further. The bashing subtly reaches legitimate brokers who make a living trading stock (a service which, like movie making, vastly enriches the very few at the expense of the many who want the service). Two lines most revealingly demonstrate this: The evil caricature Douglas smugly asks (paraphrasing) “You think this is a democracy!? No! This is capitalism!” (Ignoring that the political system (democracy) and the economic system (capitalism) are interrelated and are presumably good.)

This film is basically incredibly predictable in a story that goes from one place to another in cliche after cliche. The characters in this film are just basically total yuppie assholes. Even the main protagonist, Sheen, doesn’t even seem that liable to root for. He just seems so dumb and even a bigger deuche.

The acting is very very sub-par. I mean in all honesty I think Douglas at times really did over-play his role as this totally unlikable guy. Some scenes hes very good, and some hes just not all that there. In all honesty he did not deserve that Oscar at all. Sheen gives an OK performance here but I found it very hard throughout the film to take him seriously since I’m a huge fan of Two and a Half Men.

Consensus: The acting is OK, but the story is very very contrived, with predictable story elements, and even worse characters that your more likely to hate then cheer for.

2/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!

Five Easy Pieces (1970)

One of the most depressing Nicholson films I have ever seen!

A promising concert pianist, Robert (Jack Nicholson) chucks it all to work on a California oil rig but returns home to confront the cultured and dysfunctional family he left behind when he learns his father is ill.

So if you love your Nicholson who’s always smart and funny in every movie that you see him appear in nowadays, your not going to want to turn towards this movie.

The one thing I was very surprised about in this film is that it actually does create a powerful dramatic atmosphere. Scenes that you would have never thought been so effective and powerful actually come out to become that way, and it is a very beautiful thing to see.

This film can be made as a character study cause it basically paints this wonderful portrait of an upper middle class dropout, who has to come to terms with all the promise he just ran away from. He basically plays out to be the voice for millions of people across the world, as a person who can’t seem to come to terms with his past, and can’t accept what the future has given him.

I only had a couple problems with this film that never really surpassed me at all. Complicated people are always the most interesting characters, but when a character is almost totally inscrutable, it is difficult to identify with them. Robert is so relentlessly self-destructive and frightened of any attachment to anyone or anything, that he is almost non-existent. Also, the fact that he left the music he played so well, but what for? We never really understand why he left it other than the fact that his family is a bit weird.

Nicholson is very very good in this film, and is basically a well-played guy that we start to hate more and more. Many of the scenes could have been just dull, but  he makes them a lot better with his sure intensity and anger inside of this character. The problem with the cast was that none of the other people in the cast do that well, and a lot of times just fall to the side of Nicholson and his wonderful performance.

Consensus: Five Easy Pieces is not an easy film to sit through with its slow pace, but shows a wonderful character study that wouldn’t be anything without the great performance by a young Nicholson.

8/10=Matinee!!!!

Beetlejuice (1988)

Wow, the after life isn’t so bad after all.

Thanks to an untimely demise, a young couple (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) ends up as poltergeists in their New England farmhouse, where they fail to meet the challenge of scaring away the insufferable new owners in this creepy comic classic. In desperation, the undead newlyweds turn to an expert frightmeister named Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) — who has a diabolical agenda behind his scheme to help them.

Judging by the way the story looks from a beginners view point, it looks very serious. Well the truth is, not really, actually not at all.

The thing with this film from other of Tim Burton’s is that yes it has its crazy looks, but its not a film that it totally insane that you have no idea whats going on. The special effects are crazy and in your face, but you don’t loose sight of what is actually at hand.

I had a problem with the special effects cause I think Burton tries to overwhelm us with way too much special effects that it actually becomes obnoxious. I’m not going to fault the ambitious art direction in this film, it’s just too much of a not very good thing.

Now despite this, a lot of this film is very very very funny. I laughed at a good part of this film and surprisingly too. It does a great job of bending these dark humor and horror elements together while still having you laugh at everything that’s going on. Some stuff is a bit random but that’s the whole reason for the film, is that its supposed to be random and funny, which it does very well.

One of the main reasons why this film is so hilarious is because of Keaton. He plays Beetlejuice like this guy you know in real life. Always that kind of jokester guy who thinks hes the shit, but regardless Keaton still adds a tremendous amount of humor onto the film.

Consensus: Beetlejuice has too much special effects that get annoying, but features genuine humor that is made better by a energetic performance from Keaton.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Strange Days (1995)

God, the world really has gone to whack!

Ex-cop Lenny Nero (Ralph Fiennes) is a pusher of potent — and illegal — virtual-reality clips, peddling sex, murder and violence to the masses in quasi-futuristic Los Angeles. But when a high-profile murder shows up in his collection, Lenny is snared in a fast-paced manhunt. With the help of his friend Mace Mason (Angela Bassett), he stays ahead of danger and tries to protect an old flame (Juliette Lewis).

From its first moments, the film creates a mood of anxiety and foreboding. With the new millenium just days away, the disenfranchised masses are ready to erupt in violence, and everyone knows that something BIG is about to happen. With a set-up like that, most films would end up with a disappointing conclusion. “Stange Days,” however, delivers an exhilarating, cathartic climax.

This film has a lot of ideas they want to put out there. Its all about the feelings of other people’s experiences, and taking them in your own life and living them. This idea is shown very well throughout the whole film in these little videos Fiennes keeps getting.

Director Kathryn Bigelow does pull out all the stops in this film on so many levels. On a visual level the film is fascinating, as it shows this world just doomed that is filled with havoc and crime all over the place. And, she does a great job of actually keeping this story interesting and involving. Yeah, it’s a little different from what we have seen before but it still feels like a regular action thriller set in this dystopian cyberpunk world.

There were some problems I did have with this film though. First of all a lot of things didn’t make so much sense to me. Like why was Fiennes, who was the ex-cop, basically go the whole movie getting his ass kicked, when Bassett, a limo driver, is beating more people up. Also, I liked the setting I just didn’t understand why everything was all of a sudden havoc, why were crimes always being committed, and just why was the world going to come to an end?

The writing also seemed a bit too cliche and obvious. It could have been stronger when it came to characterizing its characters as different people but instead goes on this road we have seen many a times with these films.

Fiennes does a very good job in the lead role mostly cause he isn’t playing the typical super hero. He is a solicitor, a snuff man, and a bad person, but thinks his way through every situation and is smart when it comes to what to do next. Bassett gives a very good performance as well, and the two build up a genuine chemistry that seems real and barely ever fake. Lewis is basically playing the same character as usual, and throughout the whole film never changes.

Consensus: Strange Days has its flaws, but also has wonderful ideas that are backed by a powerful direction from Bigelow, and features a thrilling story with good enough performances to keep you satisfied.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009)

Mall Cops all around the wolrd are forever shamed.

Funnyman Kevin James (“King of Queens”) stars as Paul Blart, an overzealous security guard who finds himself in way over his head when he attempts to thwart a criminal mastermind’s (Keir O’Donnell) plot to rob an entire shopping mall.

Basically what you will notice right away that the plot sort of rings a bell as soon as you read it. That’s right people, its Die Hard but instead of a huge ass building its a mall, instead of Bruce Willis we have Kevin James, and instead of an R-Rating we have PG kiddy movie.

Don’t get me wrong here there are actually some genuine laughs but their not the kind of laughs I prefer. Usually the jokes aren’t smart, or meaningful, they are more about the slapstick and making a fat joke towards the main character, which in itself is just demeaning.

But see the thing is here once you get the first 20 minutes you already get an idea of what your in store for. The fat jokes just keep on coming down the isle, and never get funny. Kids will laugh cause you know its fat people but for me I was I just thinking, you know what is wrong with all this, why is this in such bad taste.

It might be the PG rating, but the film comes off as too castrated. The few bit and pieces that are humorous or witty were already shown in the preview for the most part.

Kevin James basically gives it everything he’s got, totally committing to the character of Paul Blart. He also delivers a lot of the family-friendly clean comedy which is just totally better than just your typical state of the art raunch fest, which I had a feeling this wasn’t going to be at all.

Consensus: Paul Blart has some laughs mostly from James in the lead, but too many jokes fall flat, and is only good to take out the whole family.

3/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!!

Bart Got a Room (2008)

This Bart guy sounds pretty wild.

Already dealing with his parents’ divorce, sad-sack Danny Stein (Steven Kaplan) faces his next big emotional challenge: asking a girl to prom and getting her into a hotel room after the dance — something even total dweeb Bart Beeber is confidently planning. But as Danny’s prospects dwindle, he turns to ever-more desperate measures to score the perfect date. Brian Hecker directs this teen comedy that co-stars William H. Macy and Alia Shawkat.

One thing you will notice very quickly about this film is its wonderful setting. The Hollywood/Florida Jewish community that everybody’s got an opinion on who he should take to the prom, and it was very funny to see how all these people interacted within this culture.

The humor here in this film is grounded, which is a good thing and bad thing. It works cause its not as totally over-the-top with raunch, but yet its not as funny as them kinds of films, and just comes off as an awkward look. I think some of the jokes could have been as funny as others, just with a bit more raunch.

There is a lot more heart in this film than comedy, and it really does work out. The relationships that these three people have and their own characters work well, as each is able to work off the dialogue with one another as the story moves along. The last ten minutes work very well, and in such a heart-warming way too.

Kaplan gives off a good strong lead performance, and holds his own throughout this story. But the best here is H. Macy who shows that he can play almost anybody and make it seem believable. He has these constant little sayings that are just so so funny that they are so hard to ignore.

Consensus: Bart Got A Room doesn’t contain much raunch and not as much humor as other teen-comedies, but features just enough heart and good performances to make this trip worth awhile.

7/10=Rental!!

Black and White (1999)

Not much in this world has changed.

A huge cast of actors, rappers and celebrities (including Brooke Shields, Mike Tyson, Robert Downey Jr. and Ben Stiller) play out a drama that unfolds as black and white America combine — and abrade — on Manhattan’s streets. This film examines the burgeoning influence of the urban rap scene on middle-class high school kids.

The film acts out as if it were a documentary. With parts being informative about privelaged kids acting black gangsters, and also about the actual story at hand.

The one very cool thing about this film is that almost all the lines are improvised. Which makes this film seem a lot more real than you would believe. You got all these different blends of entertainment hitting together and it such a realism to the whole element of this study o hip-hop culture and life style.

The film isn’t just about identity mixed with the culture but its also about the culture itself. The film right from the get-go shows that this movie is all about the sex, drugs, and violence that comes along with the life style.It shows the raw nature that some of these white kids nowadays don’t understand and would be wrong to act like their apart of.

The only problem with this piece, is that there is no real message. With plenty of ensemble pieces at the end of the film there is almost always some sort of timely message that we can all relate to. However with this one, if there is one I couldn’t really tell cause it got jumbled around so much for no reason. When the ending happens your confused on what you actually watched was a film about culture identities, or a film about how crazy the hip-hop culture is getting.

The acting in this film good, though its not really acting but a lot of them are going real well together. The problem was that a lot oif the cast was full of rap artists that did kind of look awkward out on the screen, as they were kind of forcing their lines into oblivion just saying fuck over 20 times to get their point across. The best is actually Ben Stiller who is in a dramatic role, and every time on-screen does very very very well, and to be truly honest should stick with drama for now on.

Consensus: The plot is complicated and the message isn’t brought out well, but Black & White has great improv mixed with good performances, and a compelling atmosphere.

7.5/10=Rental!!

Happy, Texas (1999)

How Steve Zahn got his start, playing Steve Zahn.

Mistaken as consultants to a beauty pageant in the town of Happy, Texas, two escaped convicts go along with the ruse, masquerading as gay lovers Harry (Jeremy Northam) and Wayne (Steve Zahn). In trying to teach Happy’s Junior Misses to win, the two run up against a sheriff (William H. Macy) with the hots for Harry, and a local teacher (Illeana Douglas) catches Wayne’s eye.

The film starts out with what is probably one of the oldest stories in the book, the escaped capers/fish-out-of-water story, I mean we even saw it in Shakespeare. But it just proves that old wine can sometimes have a fresh taste.

The film really does go through a lot of changes without ever going too far out of hand. However, I felt like there were some parts when the film got too in the element of trying to be cute was very very light for this film, and obvious. When Harry is trying to act gay towards the local teacher and everything its pretty obvious that he was not gay by the way he talked, spoke to her, and at times even touched her. I just couldn’t believe she didn’t pick up on that.

Just homophobic enough to be offensive to gays, not funny enough to be a genuine spoof. A sample of the dialogue: “You know, you spoke better when you were gay.” I just think that some of these lines in the movie were in bad taste for jokes, cause it went diving right in to the gay jokes, and really those aren’t very funny after awhile.

The one thing I will say about this film is that it does have some good humor despite the gay jokes. It looks they were having a lot of fun with this material, and almost all of that fun pours out right onto us through the screen. The little twists and turns of this story actually don’t get involved with any of this humor so we’re not taken away by it at all.

The performances from the cast are very very good. But the best in my opinion come from the supporters Zahn and H. Macy. Zahn uses a lot of his crazy eccentric styles to make his scenes work, as well as his psychical humor which is just terrific. But H. Macy does a very sweet job at playing this very awkward cop, who always finds new meaning in life with everything he does.

Consensus: Though some of the jokes are out of bad taste, but Happy, Texas has fun humor, hilarious acting, and a given proof that fish-out-of-water capers aren’t at all out of style.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Serendipity (2001)

Honestly if my chick believed in just fate, then I would dump her ass right away.

An amalgam of the plot lines from When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle, Serendipity has John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale meeting during a Christmas shopping spree but parting company soon thereafter. Ten years (and a few failed relationships) later, they yearn to put true love to the test by reuniting. But first, they have to find each other.

The film has a very cute and light touch to it. Many of the things that happen in this film is something you see almost all the time in every single romantic dramedy, except the difference is that its all based on fate.

The one problem I had with this film was that it was based way too much on fate and circumstances. The fateful future “coincidences” are so contrived and far fetched that the movies premise was lost for me.

This movie has no depth and will disappoint those that find the extreme serendipity to be too much to deal with. Why two people would at the last minute dump their fiancee’s on fate was preposterous to me.

Cusack and Beckinsale are actually pretty good in this but are never given any time on screen together since they are so used to just playing little tricks on each other. I cared about these characters and I wanted them to get together, but soon by the end I knew they were, and didn’t really care for them since the whole plot was basically based on them playing one another.

Consensus: Though it’s a cute and light film, Serendipity suffers from a overly destructive plot that has us forgetting about the characters and not worrying what happens to them next.

4/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!

Bird (1988)

Charlie Parker was one messed up dude!

Nicknamed “Yardbird,” Charlie Parker (Forest Whitaker) was a virtuoso saxophonist whose innovations revolutionized jazz. Despite his musical genius, Parker was hopelessly addicted to drugs, and his life started to spur out of control.

Now the film isn’t the usual run of the mill biography that you normally see. It doesn’t start off from the musicians beginnings, and show his life before music. No it starts off with a bang and showing him as this drunk and high fool, blabbering on about God knows what, giving us the impression that this man is not as light as you think.

The one problem with this is that the film shows us more of the man than the music. In some cases this is fine, but here it doesn’t quite work so much. I feel like the film barely ever focused on any of the positives of Parker and just showed him as a wild junkie, who had no regret for his actions. There would be some points of him showing compassion, but that didn’t really work for me since this guy was always shown in such a bad light.

Parker has made such great music but the making of the music itself are barely ever shown. We see him play this great music, but never think about it, find inspiration for it, and most of all write about it. Instead we just him improvise it, and do drugs later on.

However, I cannot lie the music is very good. A lot of the times I found myself really enjoyed by these performances and the music he does, since I do like this music and found it extremely entertaining. I just wish they dived more into the music and what it shows about Parker rather than him just playing it all the time.

Clint Eastwood does a very good job at not getting us too confused with this information crammed into a 2 1/2 hour time limit, but it still didn’t get too gritty for me. We know this guy did heroin, and drank a lot but we rarely ever see him in the action. I wish they showed more of him doing these things because then I would have had a total feel of what he was going through at the time.

A young Whitaker shows his Oscar look early with this complex performance as Parker. Not only does he maintain the emotional scenes, but also shows a great sense of realism during the playing scenes, and looks like we’re watching Parker in real life on screen. The only problem was that some of the others in the cast weren’t as good as him, and showed off to be a bit weak, and he was just playing off them like they were all chumps.

Consensus: Bird has a strong complex performance from Whitaker and amazing music, but never leaves the idea that this man was a junkie, and never touches on the music that made him so famous.

6.5/10=Rental!!

Rounders (1998)

Texas Hold ‘em is such a fun ass game, but also deadly.

Fueled by his penchant for high-stakes gambling, law student Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) befriends and “befoes” a fellow gambling addict named Worm (Edward Norton) and club owner Teddy KGB (John Malkovich). But tensions run high when Worm and Mike have only five days to come up with $15K.

Now I do enjoy playing poker, especially the game Texas Hold ‘em. So when I saw this film and the way all these strategies were used I was very surprised by how first-rate it actually was with the whole element of poker playing.

The film feels more like its a sports movie rather than a drama with poker elements. I was thinking about like a Rocky type film when I was watching this as how it ends with a big fight, when in this case ends with a big poker game.

I think the bad problem for this film is that it seems a bit too harmful for people who watch this, and are looking for careers. This film sort of highlights the gambling world as something awesome and fun to be apart of as long as your winning. This didn’t bother me as much, but I never understood why this dangerous life was all of a sudden a great and bright thing to do.

By the end of the film a lot more of this starts to seem a lot more predictable than what I was imagining by the third act. Some parts of this movie I have seen countless times before. Elements of gangster films like Goodfellas can be found here, and obviously sports film cliches can be found as well.

The one element that Rounders mostly benefits from is its great characters and the performances. Damon, plays this average Joe who gets taken back into the life he once was great with, and plays that side very effectively. The best character in the film has to be from the amazing Edward Norton who never seems to fail at everything he does. He is a trouble maker, but at the same time also a likable guy who is very colorful at points that you can’t hate him even though he is kind of a bad dude.

Consensus: Though a bit predictable, Rounders is packed with colorful performances and a lot of energy to make this film a joyful ride.

8/10=Matinee!!

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Proof that Peter Jackson isn’t the greatest.

When 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is murdered, she watches from above as her family deals with her tragic death — and as her killer prepares to strike again. Torn between vengeance and healing, Susie’s loved ones are forever changed. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz star in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of Alice Sebold’s riveting best-selling novel; Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci co-star.

Now this is based off a n0vel, that I have never read. Before this movie was coming out I really wanted to go out and buy it but never got that far. But now after watching this I have decided I need to give the book a nice read.

Peter Jackson uses a lot of these great ways to lighten up the mood in this film. He uses a full pallet of rich color, lush music, and astonishing visual effects that will simply leave you in awe. When Susie is in the after world there is a lot of images to look at, yeah they may be a bit creepy and weird with their CGI look, but I felt like I was in a whole new world of love and beauty when these scenes were on.

There are some beautifully crafted suspenseful set pieces within this film as well. Scenes come up out of nowhere that just leave you on the edge of your seat not knowing what was going to happen next, and how it was going to happen.

The one big bad problem that the film has is that it can’t find a coherent approach to this story. At times its grim and the others its beauty, but it just didn’t work out real well. One minute I would be in this beautiful wonderland full of joy and happiness, then the next minute I would stuck watching this serial killer at all nutty, while the parents of Susie are still trying to investigate. The film should have just went with one whole approach and mood towards this film instead it tries to combine these two, and it doesn’t work at all.

The biggest problem, overall, is that in a movie that runs well over two hours, Jackson is so busy bombarding us with trippy post-death visuals that he forgot to include actual human relationships. There are maybe fifteen minutes of actual conversation between characters in the entire movie — and believe me, I’m not exaggerating. Everything else is given over to our perky dead girl running through CGI mountains and fields, or observing her mopey family, while the ponderous, constant, droning narration makes the whole thing feel like an illustrated audio book.

Wahlberg and Weisz are completely given really nothing at all, other than being just these cheesy one dimensional characters throughout the whole film. For me they could have been given more material, because these two have proved in the past that they can work with good material, if given it correctly. The best performance here is Stanley Tucci as the creepy serial killer. Every time he was on screen I was just scared and wondering to myself what was this man going to do next. There wasn’t one time that I didn’t believe that this man was a crazed and amazingly creepy neighbor. Ronan is OK in this role, as sometimes she is just seen as being scared, and at the same time just repeating these little monologues.

One last thing with this film is that it’s message about death, and the after life did not seem all that well brought out. It wasn’t that preachy, but it also wasn’t well brought out in the way it could have been with the source material it was given.

Consensus: The Lovely Bones has Peter Jackson’s visual flairs and a great performance from Tucci, but can’t find a coherent approach to its mood, and barely shows any other human emotion other than just being sad all the time.

5/10=Rental!!!!

Raising Arizona (1987)

Coen Brothers can basically do no wrong.

Ex-cop Edwina “Ed” McDonnough (Holly Hunter) and her ex-con husband, H.I. (Nicolas Cage), are devastated when they learn they can’t have children. Not to worry: They reckon they’ll just “borrow” one of furniture magnate Nathan Arizona’s (Trey Wilson) new quintuplets.

Now this film was the Coen Brothers next hit after Blood Simple. That was very slow paced and spare, however with this, it’s upbeat, funny, and overall some of the better work that they have done.

The story is so off-the-wall. It is all just so goofy, to its characters, its story even to its look at points. The film pokes fun at heart of America citizens which didn’t seem in good taste, but then soon starts to redeem itself due to some big laughs that make you just listen to the jokes rather than the visuals or story.

However their were some slow patches, and parts that didn’t make sense. Such as Cage always dreams of  a crazy biker who was always killing things, and somehow he ended up turning real, and finding out how to solve one case that I can’t really tell you. For me this was really confusing but at the same time, I just ignored it due to the humor.

The Coen Brothers really do know how to just film a movie with their realistic as hell camera work. The film has many chases and action, but the camera never loses pace with its action and you always feel like your on the ride of a lifetime with some of these shots. Also, the film is really great to look at with all its vibrant colors, and such make this film a lot more colorful.

The performances here are some of the funniest and quirkiest made from the stars. Nic Cage plays a goofy crook, who always has these hilarious insights on life, that are just so dumb, but at the same time are just great and actually kind of smart if you think about it. Holly Hunter does even a better job as Ed the ex-cop, and the one thing that these two have in common despite being on two opposite sides of the law, they both have very good chemistry together and it rarely ever seems forced.

The film does a great job at leaving us with a thoughtful message with a powerful scene. It tells how some people fit into this crazy world, and how others sometimes cannot, and maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be too quick to judge either group.

Consensus: Raising Arizona has some rough patches, but is revived with its hilarious and at the same time quirky humor, unusual characters with wonderful performances, and a powerful message to leave us off on this crazy ride straight from the Coen’s.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!!

The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008)

This movie must of had to be haunted with this final cut.

Troubled by her mother’s recent psychotic break, Molly (Haley Bennett) hopes to start fresh at a new school. She befriends fellow senior Joseph (Chace Crawford) and is happy to be a regular kid again. But the horrifying truth about her mother is destined to catch up with her. When Molly turns 18, she’ll be held accountable for a supernatural bargain made long ago, one that she cannot escape.

This is a horror movie without any horror. It tells you it’s sexy, but there’s no sex. It’s called ‘The Haunting of Molly Hartley’, but there’s no haunting. No ghosts! There’s a half-witted, ill-defined plot about Satanic destiny and a nonsensical ending. The first 15 minutes of the film are from a different movie entirely. It’s vaguely tied to ‘Molly Hartley’, but never comes full circle.

There are the obvious little jumps and scares that make you jump in your seat but that only happens if your in a movie theater. When your watching a horror movie your expected to be shocked if it was for grotesque or scary reasons, however this film has none of those reasons.

It does have this idea of throwing in religion which might make this film a bit more scary and like legitimate with a bit of sense. So putting the devil up against God, cause you know how scary that mythology really can get, and really I have no idea what kind of story dives so far like that. Essentially, after awhile this film just becomes an excuse to watch a high school student in a very skimpy uniform for 1 hour and 30 minutes.

The screenplay is so terrible. There are lines in this film that feel so unbelievably non believable. It feels like it was written by a 2nd grader that just was told this was a scary movie, make it scary. And so that kid did, but now that I think about it, I feel like some body even younger wrote this.

If there was anything good about this film was that the first time I watched it I meant some people that actually turned out to be one of my best friends in the world, so this film brought out some good memories within it.

Consensus: Stupid film, no horror, and a bad script. That all leads to the disaster of this crap.

1/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!

Fired Up (2009)

This film proves that male cheer leading is not gay.

After maxing out their starring roles on the high school football team, Shawn (Nicholas D’Agosto) and Nick (Eric Christian Olsen) ditch summer training camp and head into brave new territory: volunteering to help the cheerleading squad reach new heights. The team’s pretty captain (Sarah Roemer) doesn’t buy the guys’ act for a second. But even she has to admit her sorry squad could use two extra sets of hands.

I had no intention on seeing this when I saw the trailer thinking it was going to be another cheerleader movie but I saw it and I really enjoyed it, however, they were some problems. For one thing, there’s a scene where the girls are watching Bring It On and are saying lines from the film and I thought “That’s unrealistic” but then again, you would never think the two guys in the film were in high school.

The guys in the film Olsen and D’Agosto, look like their 30. Not once did I believe these guys as young high-schoolers. The way they talked, acted, and even reacted did not seem like they were in high school one bit.

The film is extremely one note for that matter. While that one note does have moments that made me laugh out loud, I don’t think that they’re giving guys enough credit. There are NO guys that think about sex as much as these two characters; in the words of The Princess Bride, it’s inconceivable! I mean, a lot of guys are pigs, sure, but they DO do other things besides sweet talk women.

There were also parts in this film that were insanely cliched. Because as soon as they left for camp, I knew exactly where the film was going to go with this.

Now, this film is not very bad really, if anything some moments did have me laugh. Though i think gay jokes that are played over and over again are not funny, this film proved to me that if you have the write flavor to the gay jokes they can actually make you laugh. Also, the film is not as raunchy as in today’s world of teen sex comedies. This treats its comedy with a very light touch that can be seen from mostly teens all the way up to some adults.

Consensus: Fired Up is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but is very funny at points, not raunchy as in today’s standards, and in the end just cute.

5/10=Rental!!

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

I never really imagined Sherlock Holmes as this type of dude.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as the legendary London sleuth Sherlock Holmes, joined by Jude Law as dear Dr. Watson, in this Guy Ritchie reinvention of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s oft-adapted detective series. Based on a comic book by producer Lionel Wigram, the story follows Holmes and Watson as they face off against the villainous Blackwood (Mark Strong). Rachel McAdams co-stars as quick-witted beauty Irene Adler.

So as soon as I found out that this film was going to be directed by one of my favorite’s, I was interested and curious at the same time. Why would this guy get stuck with this type of material, and would it work?

To answer the question, it’s a sort of yes and kind of no. Guy Ritchie’s pacing is quick and he does make the film a lot more fun that what I was expecting. There is a lot of action sequences that are nice, violent, and fun to watch. If the film just focused on his detective ways, it wouldn’t have been as exciting as seeing a kick-ass detective, breaking people’s jaws into two places. The way that the action works its way into the film doesn’t at all slow it down once.

The editing in the film is top notch as well. In between present moments of time are a plethora of moments involving Holmes recapping and analyzing how he should proceed in his actions. These scenes are beautifully executed and very well timed, allowing the viewers to really get inside of Holmes’ head more effectively than any bit of dialogue ever could. Although slow moving at first, the story builds to a climax that brings all questions full circle and opens up room for a sequel by introducing an element that any Holmes fan will notice was absent in throughout most of the film. I won’t spoil it here but, needless to say, I curiously await how well it shall be done in the sequel, should it come to fruition.

Now when I mean no, is that Ritchie’s style of story-telling does get a bit in the way. I felt that some stuff was put in the movie, just for comedic relief, and not necessarily for the story. I was kind of confused on how the case was actually getting solved by all the action, and at points I was even confused what were the results of the case.

Other of Ritchie’s trade marks, however work very well. The screenplay is rich with this sarcastic wit and humor that works very well throughout the whole movie. Some action scenes and others with the mystery involved were better with its light tone added with the humor. Also, the way Ritchie uses his way of telling these little clues work well, as you find out peace by peace the story.

Another problem I had with the film was the absence of any sense of color and the setting. I mean yeah the setting was good-looking, but it was just very grimy and very depressing. The story can be colorful at points, but there was never really any great blend of rich colors to stylize the movie more.

Probably the best element of the film is the acting by its two leads. Downey Jr. is great as the sarcastic and colorful Sherlock, and although sometimes the guy can be so goofy that we love him as a wonderful lead. But the duo of him and Jude Law is what makes it the best. Every time these two are on-screen it just feels like two comedians who have known each others their whole lives, and just continually riff on each other again and again. McAdams didn’t seem that strong in this film, and plenty of the lines she had just seemed very forced.

Consensus: Though Ritchie’s style doesn’t quite fit the original material, Sherlock Holmes is a fast-paced, action mystery, that has funny dialogue that gets even better with its performances from the leads.

8/10=Matinee!!

Diner (1982)

One of the best places to hang out no matter how old you get is always going to be, the diner.

Set in 1959 Baltimore, writer-director Barry Levinson’s debut film focuses on a group of pals on the brink of adulthood who find solace at the local diner. The late-night banter between groom-to-be Eddie (Steve Guttenberg), best man Billy (Tim Daly), womanizer Boogie (Mickey Rourke), music addict Shrevie (Daniel Stern) and quirky Modell (Paul Reiser) ranges from girls to growing up and getting old. Ellen Barkin and Kevin Bacon also appear.

This movie defines nostalgia…and who doesn’t think about the past…past friendships and experiences…mostly with a smile. It brings you back to a good old time that you used to have with your buddies always discussing topics about life.

This film is not necessarily a coming-of-age film as much as it is a period piece about these friends and their lives. There is one attitude that goes around this film that isn’t very talked about is the fear of women. There are these movies that show these macho guys going around drinking beer, driving motorcycles, and always having a good time. However, in Diner this attitude is a lot more perceptive, these guys are afraid of women and they see them as an undiscovered country as seen by many scenes in this film.

The writing from Barry Levinson in this film is just superb. He really does show he has a knack for hilarious but at the same true realistic dialogue. Many lines in this film are funny, that also go along with the scenes and make the scenes a lot more better, than you would expect.

One of the most extraordinary things that the film does is that we feel like we know these characters our whole lives. Levinson directs the film in a way so that everybody involved in this film gets a chance to show who they are and their personalities. Its one of those films that I actually felt like I understood who these people were, when the film was over.

The one problem I had with this film was that some scenes were very memorable but their weren’t just enough of those memorable scenes. I think the one problem is that the film does lag at points to where it gets borderline boring, but not enough to totally throw my attention away.

The acting by this very young cast is what makes it even better. Out of the whole cast Mickey Rourke is the best I can name. He is a total womanizer having no feelings for the chicks in general, just their bodies, but by the end of the film he makes a great transition to where you see him as a sympathetic heartfelt guy, and I think as charming as he is in this performance, he does one of the best jobs.

Consensus: Diner does lag at points, but has wonderful dialogue, charming performances, and realistic attitudes about life that bring you back to great times in your life that you remember the most and cherish.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Falling Down (1993)

Michael Douglas can be one crazy son of a bitch!

Bill Foster (Michael Douglas) is having a very bad day: He’s been fired from his job, gets stuck in a traffic jam and is forced to walk through the sizzling L.A. streets. As the obstacles mount and his temper frays, Foster begins lashing out at society’s injustices. Joel Schumacher’s feature also stars Robert Duvall as an overzealous cop who gets wind of Foster’s near-psychotic rampage and sets out to bring him down.

Many people will confuse Falling Down with a typical “revenge” movie, similar to the popular Death Wish series and other vigilante movies. This is a huge mistake, as Falling Down has a much darker, uncomfortable feel than Charles Bronson taking out his neighborhood.

The film isn’t all just about Douglas going around killing people, as more as it is about the case to get him. I still think they could have dove more into the person of who Douglas plays instead of this white suburban guy fed up with the economy.

Some parts of this movie are genuinely funny. The script isn’t all that rich with wit and detail, but when it wants to bring out some humor it actually does quite well, which could actually categorize it as a dark comedy.

The cliches are a little out there in this film as well. You, as usual, have the cop that’s on his last day of the job and the mad man he is trying to catch. Both parts of the story don’t really quite jell together as well since Douglas’ scenes are funny and exciting, while Duvall’s scenes are boring and dull. I just wish more and more time was devoted to Douglas since he did seem like the center piece of the story.

Douglas does give one of his most unusual performances of his career in this. He’s crazy, pissed off, and most of all very tragic. This guy has thrown his whole life away, and some times when you see him its really actually sad of how pathetic and delusional he actually is, which makes him a better character than some people give him, and Douglas plays him so well.

Consensus: Falling Down is darkly funny, very well-acted by Douglas, and not your usual vigilante film, but has many cliches, and not enough screen time devoted to Douglas.

6/10=Rental!!

Obsessed (2009)

I know they say once you go black you can’t go back, but goddamn!

Derek Charles (Idris Elba) seems to have it all — including the perfect job and the perfect wife (Beyoncé Knowles). But his charmed life takes on an ugly tarnish when sexy office worker Lisa Sheridan (Ali Larter) sets out to seduce and destroy him. Now, it’s much more than a dangerous liaison; it’s a full-blown occupational hazard.

If you have already seen the trailer, there is no need to waste your time with this film, you have already seen the whole movie.

Basically if you haven’t already known before, but basically this is a modern-riff on Fatal Attraction. Yes, the same plot, and mostly the same crazy shit that always seem to inhabit these types of films. There is really nothing knew here that it adds, other than one chick is black and the other is white.

To be truly honest, I actually wanted something bad for this guy to happen. He doesn’t sleep with the chick but it never gets interesting because he never does do anything wrong. It just seems like this guy was Beyonce’s little bitch, and he never gets into any trouble whatsoever, therefore my interest level was done with.

The film totally changed by the end as well. It went from this Fatal Attraction esque thriller, from switching gears to this horror/action type of last act. This was so dumb, but to be honest my attention for this film left me so it didn’t quite matter after all.

Larters performance is laughably over the top. She is just way too crazy to be sexy. Sure she’s hot, but she comes off as so desperate and psychotic from day one that she never manages to be tempting. And after all she is just some crazy bitch. If she never manages to make the man in the equation go astray, what power does she really have. An impotent villain makes for a pointless hero. Bottom line is that you have to seriously suspend disbelief if she is to seem even somewhat menacing. Shes nothing that couldn’t be controlled with a good crack to the mouth, and her and Knowles together are even worse. Its a veritable bad act off.

There are only two good things I’ll give this props for. 1. Idris Elba, god bless his heart, actually does give a very belivable and likable performance here, and 2. I can’t lie that action scene with Beyonce kicking ass is pretty nice no lie, and will surley get the crowd going.

Consensus: Obsessed is a total riff of Fatal Attraction, that never gets interesting due to its obvious cliches, bad acting by the villain, and mostly just overall a dumb story to be re-told.

2/10=SomeOleBullShittt!!!!!

Matchstick Men (2003)

Being a con man, actually looks like a lot of fun.`

When Roy Waller (Nicolas Cage), a professional con man struggling with an obsessive-compulsive disorder, meets the daughter (Alison Lohman) he never knew he had, he inadvertently jeopardizes his tightly organized and artificially controlled life. Sam Rockwell plays Cage’s partner and protégé, with Melora Walters co-starring as Waller’s ex-wife.

So one of my favorite directors Ridley Scott, does this breezy dark comedy, focusing on con men, and their lifestyles something that I had no idea about in the first place.

Compared to many other companion pieces of the last 30 years this is one of the most enchanting. You just love seeing this father and daughter tag-team together. There are many scenes with them that are just totally bittersweet, and actually bring a lot of heart to the film.

The script crosses the crime plot and the emotional plots at the perfect moments. There’s a well made scene where Roy’s daughter begs him to teach her a con. They go to a Laundromat and con a woman into thinking she’s won the lottery. And like a good father Roy forces her to give the money back.

If there is a problem it’s the “Usual Suspects” style ending. I have nothing against playing a trick on the audience but as I put the pieces of the story together I found the final twist to be completely implausible and contrived. I don’t want to spoil it. I’ll just say that It’s one of those situations that could have never worked if one character picked up the phone and called another character.

Nic Cage gives one of his best performances in years with this film. I love how he just chooses to play these weird and zany characters, and make a great run with it. He masters all the ticks with the OCD character that he’s playing, and actually feels real. The chemistry between him and Lohman actually does feel genuine, and most of the scenes just add to the films appeal.

The conclusion left me a little depressed and disillusioned, but I think that poignant feeling at the end is just what they were shooting for. It can seem a bit corny, but almost works a bit here as a master-piece.

Consensus: Matchstick Men has a heart-warming story about family, great character studies that go to the very edge, and a great performance from Cage, even if the ending is a bit far off.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Arthur (1981)

If only all drunk people acted like this guy.

Charming but incessantly intoxicated multimillionaire Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore) stands on the brink of an arranged marriage to properly pedigreed heiress Susan Johnson (Jill Eikenberry), but his heart belongs to a working-class filcher (Liza Minnelli). When his family threatens to cut off Arthur’s inheritance if he doesn’t marry Susan, he asks loyal squire Hobson (John Gielgud) to lend a hand.

From the first moment that you hear Dudley Moore’s infectious laugh over the opening credits and theme song, you know that you’re in for a wonderful ride.

This film is most certainly a light comedy, but it carries enough weight in the development of the storyline and content that it feels substantial and moving as well. Many of the elements of comedy work so well here, that I could not just stop laughing at parts.

The one best thing about this film is that the main character Arthur, is such a spoiled playboy that he just uses his money like it falls out of his ass. But with the characterization of him, we love this guy even though he is such a snob at points.

There is probably only one bad thing I had with this film that came up a lot and it was that many of the scenes where they we’re focusing on the romantic side of the film, it was way too dull. The screenplay is hilarious when it comes to comedy, but when it tries to act serious and romantic, it comes off as way too corny and just dumb.

After watching the preview for Arthur, I expected a straight-up comedy. But then I felt the storyline was taking somewhat of a dramatic turn, and I thought it would turn out to be one of those movies that make you think it’s a comedy but end up being a drama.

Dudley Moore is probably one of the funniest drunks of all-time in this film. He is so funny, belting out hilarious one-liners like its his job, and he is one of the main reasons why this film actually works. The late great John Gielgud, gives out one of the best performances in the movie, as he turns out to be the most unusual but full of jokes butler.

Consensus: Arthur has some lame dialogue when it focuses on its romantic/dramatic side, but features hilarious jokes, and great performances from Moore and Gielgud.

8/10=Matinee!!!

The Blind Side (2009)

Looking fine, Sandra Bullock!

Over sized African American Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), the teen son of a murdered father and a crack-addicted mother, is homeless at age 16. Taken in by an affluent Memphis couple, Leigh Anne (Sandra Bullock) and Sean (Tim McGraw), Michael embarks on a remarkable rise to play for the NFL. Based on Michael Lewis’s bestseller, this inspirational sports tale also stars Kathy Bates as Michael’s persistent tutor, Miss Sue.

The plot is from a book of a guy I have never heard of. I don’t think that’s a huge problem, but every once and awhile I like to know what I’m going into.

The one thing I didn’t like about this film was that it wasn’t so much about Oher, but more of Leigh Anne. Now I’m not going to lie and say I didn’t like this, but I felt like the main person and reason of this story was just side lined, and cut down to a bunch of reaction shots, and occasionally filled with minimal dialogue.

The cliches are a out there, but I will give the film some props for at least avoiding them, and focusing on the bigger issues at hand. Director John Lee Hancock, gives us a great off-beat look at a sports drama, that actually turns out to be a lot better than expected.

The film was inspirational in its message of how this guy who came from nothing, and makes a name for him self. Almost all of the elements from any great family film are in this film, and will make you feel better about yourself, and make you second thought your assumptions of others. I really liked how they weren’t trying to push the huge matter of racism in this film, which in ways it looked as if it was going to go that way.

Another part of this film that really had me confused was a part in the film where Bullock says, “he’s changing my life.” And to be honest I didn’t see her change once. Not like there was any problem with her character in the first place, we just never see a transition of her life, when this big black kind kid comes into her life.

Sandra Bullock gives one of the greatest performances of her career in this movie. I have a feeling the Oscars will give her a nom., because she is funny, honest, and most of all believable and you don’t find that much in football films nowadays. Quinton Aaron who plays Oher actually does an OK job here even though the film puts him out as a big buffoon, and gives him very small dialogue.

Consensus: The Blind Side is a story that you have seen many times before, but is an inspirational tale filled with comedy, tear jerking scenes, and backed by an Oscar worthy performance from Bullock.

6/10=Rental!!!

Revolver (2005)

Guy Ritchie aka The Bloke who heard voices.

Jason Statham plays Jake, a gangster and ace gambler recently released from prison. Determined to hustle the crime boss (Ray Liotta) who killed his sister-in-law, Jake deliberately humiliates the kingpin in a private game. But when the mobster calls for Jake’s head, a mysterious duo steps in to save his skin.

This is Ritchie’s third attempt at the gangster franchise that he seemed so soon, to get rid of. I wish it just wasn’t this film he came back to.

First of all, the film’s plot is really just crazy. A lot of things happen for no reason what so ever, and when they happen your just left with the sideways head turn. I tried to keep up with the story but I just kept getting confused again and again, until I just gave up on the story completely.

I spent most of the 104 minutes recalling where i saw a scene from in a previous film, or who each character reminded me of from something else. An examination of the ego and its internal and external influences on who we are (or who we think we are), perceptions of self, others and the world around us: BRILLIANT idea packaged all wrong.

Oh yeah, and there is some good action as you would expect from Ritchie, but to be truly honest there isn’t enough to save this film, and it just all seems so pointless after all.

The film is so different from his countless others as well. The catchy and witty dialogue from his others, are nowhere to be found in this film. The lines are serious and at times very confusing, of what tone the film wants to take. I couldn’t handle this as I was expecting something funny, but instead got this serious side of Ritchie that I never wanted to see.

Statham does a good job as the cocky lead role, and so does Liotta as the egotistical bad guy, who seems to turn orange every minute the film goes by. But nobody really stands out in this film, and that’s what I hated cause every film has colorful characters from Ritchie, but these people are just the obvious cliched good guys and bad guys in any film like this.

Consensus: Revolver is action-packed with some good performances, but it’s plot is confusing, barely any of the Ritchie’s trademarks, mixed with an even more confusing and just overall silly psychological twist.

2/10=SomeOleBullShitt!!!!!!

Throw Momma from the Train (1987)

God, I even wanted to throw that momma from the train!

When struggling mystery writer Owen (Danny DeVito) realizes that he and his teacher, Larry (Billy Crystal), are both slowly going crazy thanks to the women in their lives, he gets a great idea: He’ll kill Larry’s devious ex-wife if Larry offs Owen’s domineering, overbearing mother. Expect classic black comedy after Owen fulfills his end of the bargain — and Larry’s stuck without an alibi!

The film takes inspiration from the Hitchcock classic film Strangers On A Train, where the perfect murder is where 2 complete strangers exchange murder victims.

The film acts like a black comedy, but isn’t all that dark at points. Yeah, it talks about murder and death, which is a dark subject, but many of the other things that happen or joked about aren’t very dark.

With this film you would expect to have been hilarious, when really its only slightly funny. Some jokes seem forced, and some are just too obvious and not very funny after all. It doesn’t have that hilarious satirical look, and feel you would expect from a film of this nature.

Instead, we get a lot of these little whimsical tales, which I thought were the best parts of the film. DeVito does a great job at directing showing himself as this pathetic young kid, who still cannot seem to get any respect from his mama. At times, the film played as it was more cute than it was more dark.

The cast does an OK job as playing their respective parts. Crystal, who I admire, is all around the place screamin, yelling, and just going insane over nothing and doesn’t make any sense in this performance. DeVito does a great job at playing this child-like man who you actually do feel pity for. But the best here is Anne Ramsey who plays Momma. She is so ruthless, and cranky that it is actually where a lot of the comedic element for this film comes from.

Consensus: DeVito’s directorial debut is impressive with some funny moments and OK performances from the cast, but doesn’t have enough humor, and has Crystal acting as a madman for no reason.

5.5/10=Rental!!!

Nine (2009)

Saw this with one of the worst crowds of my life.

Movie director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is in the throes of a midlife crisis, struggling to finish his film while juggling relationships with wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard), mistress Carla (Penélope Cruz), muse Claudia (Nicole Kidman), producer Lilli (Judi Dench) and his mother (Sophia Loren). Rob Marshall (Chicago) helms this musical based on the Broadway smash; Stacy Ferguson and Kate Hudson co-star.

Personally, I don’t really like musicals. I mean sometimes I will watch them and I find some of the music numbers very fun and exciting, and this one to be truly honest fit that description in some ways.

I hated Chicago so much! So when I heard Marshall was coming out with another musical, I really just wanted to avoid this like a plague. But, I got a chance to see it, and suprisingly it came out better than I expected. Most of this film is part realistic, part fantasy, and you can really tell when this happens.

In the beginning, the film was very slow, and the music barely was lifted off its feat. And this pattern would happen every once and again, which really threw me off. Sometimes, I got fed up with the slow pace, and decided to give up, but then an amazing musical number would come out, and sweep me off my feat.

I will say one thing about the music in this film, is that it surely is entertaining. Every time a song comes on you just feel this total bolt of energy go through the whole theater. I did find myself close dancing in my seats, and after the song I couldn’t stop just singing its catchy chorus’.

The film does have a very good and dazzling look. The lighting for the performances, bring out so many moods of how these characters feel, is just what makes the look and feeling perfect. Plenty of the settings of Italy look real well, and you feel like this place can become a character of itself too.

Daniel Day-Lewis as usual, does give a good performance here, but has this character that always seems to mess his life up until the very end, and has no problems with it, so i didn’t find him very likable. The rest of the cast does good as well, Penélope Cruz despite her amazingly gorgeous looks, does really give a solid and heart-broken performance here as the mistress.

Consensus: Nine has a great cast, great look, and some very exciting musical numbers, but at times feels distant, and gets way too slow at so many points.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Risky Business (1983)

Young Tom Cruise was such a little devil.

With his parents on vacation, high schooler Joel (Tom Cruise) — abetted by a prostitute named Lana (Rebecca De Mornay) — turns opportunity into disaster as he transforms the family home into a brothel, sees a Porsche end up in Lake Michigan and watches his Princeton dreams fade.

Risky Business was one of the first serious teen comedies, in the 80s. To be truly honest I don’t think it was funny that much.

The premise makes the film out to be hilarious, when really you will probably get a slight chuckle here and there. There are a lot of scenes that would be hilarious, but this very weird score music by Tangerine Dream sort of ruins the comedy element to the film.

There are some parts of this film that were very good. Probably the first half was the best as it really did suck me in, then the second half started to drag very bad. A lot of jokes were just being forced, with a lot of those raunchy sex wit that really didn’t work at all.

The last part of the film is what’s very funny, and sort of takes over the film. The whole film shows a great look at teen angst, and its side effects. This one kid has never been with a woman before, and when he finally does, he has no idea what to do with her, knowing that she is a prostitute, still takes her in as a girlfriend of his.

The one thing about this film is that it never served any real danger in the plot. This young suburban kid from Chicago is basically messing in the world of prostitution, but the worst thing the killer pimp could do was steal all his furniture. It’s kind of like “OK your going to steal the furniture and nothing else, what the hell!”.

Don’t get me wrong there are a lot of good things here. The soundtrack at times was a bit weird and electronic grew on me, and got better as it went along. Also, the cinematography was very good, it was very detailed and specific with its wild look.

Tom Cruise is very good here in one of his first very good roles. He plays this yuppie kid, who was always sheltered and finally gets to do something fun, but doesn’t know what to do, and he plays it so well. De Mornay and him build this very good chemistry that comes out well on screen.

Consensus: Risky Business doesn’t have all the laughs you would expect, and some obvious fictionalism, but features some true examinations of teenage angst, backed by a good young performance from Cruise.

7/10=Rentall!!!!!

State of Grace (1990)

Irish vs. Italians, nothing like it better.

Terry Noonan (Sean Penn), an Irish-American undercover cop working the Hell’s Kitchen beat, returns to his old neighborhood under the guise of reconnecting with friends Frankie and Jackie Flannery (Ed Harris and Gary Oldman), now leaders of an Irish mob family. Noonan’s actually been assigned to infiltrate the family and take them down — a task made all the harder when he renews his childhood romance with Kathleen Flannery (Robin Wright).

State Of Grace is a mobster flick that came out in 1990, along with other big-time Gangster flicks Godfather: Part III, Goodfellas, and Miller’ Crossing. This film never really stepped out in the light because of these others, but it is probably what makes it the most underrated.

The films look and appeal is just what makes it great. This look of Hell’s Kitchen in 1990, is just perfect, and it feels like a character itself, with all these thugs and bad guys inhabiting it.

The story is what is really rich however. You have Penn who grew up with all these guys, and he has so much loyalty to all of them, but he has to take them down but is torn between the loyalty of family, and his old lover. The film does show this and how at times Penn can’t even stand seeing all his friends go down, and him being put up to blame for it.

The writing is a bit of a bummer though. It isn’t as catchy, and as realistic as plenty of other mob films, and I felt like they were just saying this stuff to sound like mobsters. The difference between this film and Goodfellas, is that Goodfellas takes a straight-forward look at the life of gangsters with its very realistic dialogue, and this takes a sort of romantic look at the life of gangsters and just wants to sound like one.

In the end of the film, something really got me confused. I can’t really say anything to give too much away, but there is a huge shoot-out, in the number of gunshots that conveniently miss people, especially since these are all supposed to be tough, gun-savvy mobsters.

This acting here from the cast is very top-notched. Penn delivers another young, and strong performance as a man torn apart. But the best here is Gary Oldman, as Jackie. At first his look with the wrinkled down hair, I was expecting another one of those cheesy, gritty performances, when really what I got was one of the most heart-felt performances from anyone in the entire film. You really do understand this character for what he is, and not something he just looks to be like I did in the beginning. Ed Harris does that big bad guy look way too much in this film, and I really didn’t feel his anger come out in the performance.

Consensus: State Of Grace is a superbly acted mobster film with some great shots of New York, and an interesting story, just a lot more flawed than one of the best of 1990, Goodfellas.

8/10=Matinee!!!!!!

Avatar (2009)

One of the best ways to spend my Christmas day!!

The story is that Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington, is a paraplegic who goes to a world known as Pandora. Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) tells Jake that if he can get everyone on Pandora to evacuate so that they can get a substance known as unobtanium, he will get Jake some new legs. So Jake uses an Avatar of himself to gain the native’s trust and hopefully get them to evacuate. But after living amongst them, Jake feels a bond with the people and decides to fight back against the colonel in an epic battle.

James Cameron has been going around talking a whole bunch of shit of how great this is, and you have never seen anything like this at all. Now that I look at it, damn he wasn’t kidding.

If you are going to see this movie, definitely give it a try in IMAX in 3D. There really isn’t any other way to see this, and if you choose to you won’t be in this world they call Avatar. This is a technical breakthrough for all the world of technology. At first I felt like I was going to be annoyed by the 3D, but I soon found myself so fascinated with the way the film looked, that it simply went over my head. Cameron really does have a knack for these beautiful visuals, the effects are even better once you see the way this whole world looks, with its creatures, plants, and overall look of it is just fascinating.

The story has a lot of similarities to Star Wars, but really doesn’t match up to it very much. The story is all way too similar, but the way it is done keeps you hooked on from the beginning. The action will keep you on your feet, as it mixes in with the beautiful visuals you are taken away by how you are excited but also taken away by its beautiful visuals.

The film has an original story, not one of those action block busters that are based on a comic book series or another film. And it creates this world where immersed in it visual, so you almost forget that its unreal and you start caring for the characters, and the whole story.The script is kind of corny and obvious, but I soon just totally forgot about that and cared for more of the story and characters.

Worthington gives a very effective performance here as Jake, and you cheer him on as the main protagonist, and just want him to win it all. The others in the film do great with this motion capture element such as Zoë Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, and Stephen Lang, all do great in each of their respective parts. I mean as creepy as the creatures look, you actually feel like these are real people, and care more for them, then some of the other humans in this film.

If there was one problem in this almost unproblematic film, was that its central message became a pain. The real central message behind this whole film was that it was about how we are causing global warming, and by doing so we are killing ourselves. Now the first time I got it, but after that about forty times they kept bringing it up and up again, to where I was just saying “OK, I get it!”.

Consensus: Avatar has beautifully enchanting visuals, very effective performances, and an exciting if done before story, that has us forgetting about the real world we live in, with such a beautiful way.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!!!!

Intermission (2004)

Great way to spend some Christmas joy!

This collection of 11 comic stories set in Dublin stems from one single circumstance: how the breakup of one couple’s relationship can have unexpected repercussions on the lives of the people around them. One of those people is Lehiff (Colin Farrell), a thief trying to set his life straight by pulling off one last heist before retiring. Too bad dogged detective John Lynch (Colin Meaney) will stop at nothing to bring Lehiff to justice.

Now this film is a big slap in the face to conventional story telling. All these stories are weaved together and at times one acts like a whimsical romance, then the next scene is involving somebody getting punched in the face or shot.

Director Jon Crowley has a very good way of keeping this film on the level of pure entertainment. He develops a good way to follow some hard and gritty action, with some funny laughs. The film goes from one story to another in a very quick way so you are interested yourself in a lot of what’s going on. It reminded me a lot of a Pulp Fiction mixed in with some of Guy Ritchie’s films, if it was Irish.

I developed a lot of love for these characters even though they are all a bunch of low-life slime bags. We feel like we know all these people, and although they are really terrible people we start to actually like them for who they are and what they do.

The writing is very rich in this film. It is written as a amazingly dark comedy, but a lot of the times they didn’t even seem that dark. A lot of them were typical state of the art jokes, that if you understood you would laugh your ass off at. I almost felt bad for still laughing cause something terrible would happen, and I would still be laughing from before.

If there is one problem I had with this film, it was that in the middle of the story there is a kidnapping story which really wasn’t funny nor was it all that compelling. So this was the only bad thing although it did have some good consequences.

The whole cast is very good but if I had to choose one it would probably be Colin Farrell who does the best job in my opinion. He plays the bad guy that we all know him for, but he does it really well in this film, while still maintaining a sense of humor. Cillian Muprhy is also quite good here as the younger and confused guy.

Consensus: Intermission is a quick, funny, and exciting ensemble piece, with funny as hell moments, and great actors in the roles.

9.5/10=Full Pricee!!!

Merry Christmas!!!!!!

Merry Christmass to all of you!!!! I may be a bit slow on the reviews for a bit of time, but I need to do some catching up. But I want to wish all of you a safe and healthy Christmas. Thank you for always checking up on my reviews, and here’s, well, close to a new beginning.

Mixed Nuts (1994)

What a messed up title for a non-porno.

Steve Martin stars as Philip, who runs a suicide-prevention hotline staffed by tetchy Mrs. Munchnik (Madeline Kahn) and lovesick Catherine (Rita Wilson). After getting an eviction order on Christmas Eve, the counselors think they’ve hit bottom — till they cross paths with an array of wackos, including a psycho St. Nick (Anthony LaPaglia).

So watching this movie did get me a little in the holiday spirit, because I thought that “wow although my family is crazy as well, at least nobody is dead”. Thats the message I got from this one.

So the director from Sleepless in Seattle, Nora Ephron does this film, and not once shows that she can at all direct. This whole story is just trying so hard to be so dark, and so bleak, but yet so funny at the same time. Not once does it work.

The jokes are just piled on, and on, and on to the point of where your just saying to yourself “what the hell??!!!”. The lame jokes that were at times offensive started to really become just a total annoyance for me.

So many great stars are in this film, and are just so misused. Steve Martin is not very funny here, if at all, and Madeline Kahn’s whole role is just basically screaming in an elevator. Juliette Lewis is in this film and gets terribly annoying in this film, not like any of her others. Liev Schreiber was probably the only one that really made me laugh, considered it was just one big gay joke after another.

Consensus: Mixed Nuts has a horrible title, horrible dialogue, and just a horrible way to use the A-list cast they have. Also, a horrible way to spend my holiday.

1/10=SomeOleBullShiiTTtttt!!!!

Elf (2003)

It’s always being played on USA, you had to know this one was going to come.

When young Buddy falls into Santa’s gift sack on Christmas Eve and is inadvertently transported back to the North Pole, he’s raised as a toy-making elf by Santa’s helpers. After growing up to be a misfit who never quite fits in, the outsized elf (Will Ferrell) decides to go to Manhattan and find his real dad(James Caan).

I have probably seen this about 300 times. First time ever I actually went to the movies when this first came out and I really liked it, and as I got older nothing really changed I still liked every time the same way.

This film is not such a laugh out loud comedy as there are a lot of grins involved. Director and writer Jon Favreau really does handle this film with the comedy you wouldn’t expect from a Will Ferrell movie. It’s basically for all ages: kids, teenagers, adults, and maybe even some senior citizens.

Will Ferrell gives a very charming and hilarious performance here, as you would expect him just to be hamming it up the whole time, but I think this is the one film that really did start him to become comedy’s leading man in Hollywood today. James Caan is such an odd choice for this film considering all the other stuff he’s been in, but really does fit in with this film suprisingly.

The only thing that I have noticed that the problem with this film is that it does at points start to lag a bit in parts. Especially at the end where they start to discuss about Santa being all real, and this all felt a little to out of place, but in the end it really didn’t matter.

I can’t really say that this film is the most amazing piece of work ever, but it is one of the modern Christmas Classics. I have a feeling now in about 10-20 years people will be watching this film, the same way people watch A Christmas Story around this time. That’s just my assumption, but you never know it could happen.

Consensus: Elf has a timeless message with a charming performance from Ferrell that really does make this film shine even more, and become a modern Christmas Classic.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985)

How can William Hurt be gay, its not true!!!

Jailed for immoral behavior, flamboyant homosexual Luis Molina (William Hurt) passes the time by detailing scenes of his favorite romantic movie to fellow inmate Valentin Arregui (Raul Julia), a hard-edged political activist. Slowly, the two forge a bond based on mutual understanding and respect.

Kiss Of The Spider combines about three elements: the odd couple, political activist, and feminine homosexual. Sounds like a film that really can go wrong, but how it doesn’t it whats best to see.

The one thing about this film that makes it a lot more culturally significant is that Brokeback Mountain always gets the credit for breaking ground with gay people, when really people have forgotten totally about this film.

The one great thing about Kiss Of The Spider Woman is that it really doesn’t dive into the prison aspect of the film. Yeah their locked up and we all know that but it doesn’t go over almost every time that these guys are in jail and showing how horrible it can be.

The film focuses more on the relationship between these two prisoners. They are both prisoners of society in way or another and you see this through their own actions, and minds. We understand what these characters have done before, and how they got to jail which brings up a lot about the government and a society where we can’t be free enough.

There was one problem that I really did have with this film, and its that it felt a bit too much like a play. All the scenes with Hurt cavorting around, dreaming about this movie he loved, came as very show booty for me, and acted more as a playwright.

William Hurt did receive an Oscar for this, and now I can see why. He really does create this character that at a time in America, not many people understood Gay people for what they were. But Hurt gives us this heart felt and real look at a homosexual with such huge feelings of grief and desire, and it really is a splendid performance. Raul Julia does even better as well, playing the straight-forward prisoner who never wants to let his gaurd down, but gradually starts to let more and more of himself come out in this performance.

Consensus: Kiss Of The Spider Woman may seem too much like a play, but has great lead performances, a heart-felt message, and a good look at homosexuals in a world that wasn’t accepting it.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

The Messenger (2008)

The Messenger? More like The Meh-senger. Okay, now that I’ve fulfilled my quota of one bad pun per blog post, I can get on with this review.

Will Montgomery (Ben Foster), a U.S. Army Staff Sergeant who has returned home from Iraq, is assigned to the Army’s Casualty Notification service. Montgomery is partnered with Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), to give notice to the families of fallen soldiers. The Sergeant is drawn to Olivia Pitterson (Samantha Morton), whom he has delivered the news of her husband’s death.

There isn’t really much that goes with this film, other than Morton and Foster’s relationship. It just basically a tale of two dudes who go from house to house telling these families that their loved one has tragically been killed in action.

The film has a lot of dark and upsetting subjects, but is handled with such care, and not as exploited as you would think. Not only is this a tale of these two and their friendship that grows over time, but about the grief that these two have after war, and what it does to their lives personally after the war.

The little sub plot between Foster and Morton does not seem needed one bit. I understand the message the film was trying to go out with in this, but it wasn’t as rich or complicated as the relationship between Foster and Harrelson.

The best thing about the film would have to be its main characters and the performances. Ben Foster is this young and cocky former soldier who is still having reoccurring trauma from previous war and really does show how powerful he actually can be as an actor. But the best is Woody Harrelson, who shows that he can be one of the funniest guys in some of the darkest material, but change emotions so quickly and still have you believe in the guy. Their friendship over time changes into something that is just simply about business, and then to something close and more beautiful. I don’t mean for it to sound gay or anything, but at the beginning you feel like you know these characters, and then by the end you have a total feeling of who they are, and why they act like this.

I think that some stuff in this film is dark, but the film never really got dark enough for me. The families reactions were dark, but I never sensed any feeling of to how these two guys felt about doing their jobs, maybe for a scene or two.

Consensus: The Messenger may not be the darkest and well-directed war film, but features emotionally strong scenes, backed by great characterization and performances by Foster and Harrelson.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Darkman (1990)

Liam Neeson is not a scientist, that’s how you know that this film is messed up.

In director Sam Raimi’s moody, intense thriller, brilliant scientist Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is almost killed by gangsters in a massive explosion. Unstable and disfigured, Peyton becomes Darkman, an impossibly strong, tormented antihero. Able to spend only moments in the sunlight, Darkman begins a quest to rekindle his love with his girlfriend (Frances McDormand), who he’s held at a distance, and to take vengeance on his enemies.

The funny thing about Darkman is that it looks like a comic book movie (Batman, Dick Tracy), though it features an original screenplay. It has all the elements of one of those origin episodes that the comic book fans love to collect, and how they discover how that superhero turned out to be that way and why.

One thing that you soon may notice about Darkman that it acts and looks like a horror film, when really its a natural tale based on revenge. A lot of elements are thrown together to make this wild fest filled with blend of comic book action, sets, and characters, pitch black humor, and sci-fi/horror violence. I wasn’t expecting anything different from a Raimi film, but what this is still a nice and well-worked blend.

There are a lot of original things that go on in this film. Sometimes the action is really cool to look at, and there are a lot of other scenes where Darkman uses some of his smart tricks to fool others thinking he is still dead.

The one problem I had with this film was that Darkman the character was not very compelling. He obviously has a reason for killing all these people, but compared to other super heroes such as Batman and Superman, he doesn’t have much of a personality and we can’t really connect to him as an audience.

Occasionally the film does get a bit silly with its very cheap one-liners, and cliche script. But the villains didn’t seem so bad either. They just seemed like people that were part of the mob nothing really different, and I think anybody, super powers or no super powers could have easily killed them.

Liam Neeson does try his hardest with the character but isn’t given much to play with. He does have little scenes where he goes into rage and it seems believable just not memorable, and falls by the waist side of this character.

Consensus: Darkman is well-directed, and at times a very fun picture, but isn’t too memorable, that features an uninteresting superhero, and gang of villains.

6/10=Rental!!!

Babel (2006)

After watching this I needed to watch every episode of The Teletubies.

When an American couple (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) vacationing in Morocco fall victim to a random act of violence, a series of events unfolds across four countries that demonstrates both the necessity and impossibility of human communication. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu artfully weaves together three seemingly disparate stories in this Oscar nominee for Best Picture and Golden Globe winner for Best Drama.

Now right away I should let you know, if you want to watch this film be ready. The next two hours and twenty-two minutes of your life will be totally depressed, as I felt after watching this film.

The film is four stories that are all weaved together in one or another, and each feature a huge disaster among the characters. To say one story is better or more interesting than the other is simple unfair. Each story in their own features a strong enough effect on your soul and will make you think about the world we live in.

This is not an easy film to watch as each story is told through different languages so we get a sense of realism. Probably what I liked most about this film is that there are no bad guys and good guys, these people are normal everyday human beings such as you and myself. They are not judged on their morality as much as on fate and circumstance. This element of fate and circumstance really impacted me, as knowing one thing devastating thing can happen now matter how good or bad you are in life.

The cinematography is just so beautiful. Some of the images in this film are just so mesmerizing, that I couldn’t stop just to wonder how such beautiful images got put into this film. There are a couple scenes where this shows, but there is one where the Japanese girl is in a club and you get this total feeling that you are in it with all the strobe lights, and the atmosphere its just so great looking.

The only problem I had with this film was not so much of a problem with the film but more of with me. The film was just so damn depressing!! I mean there was little or no humor involved whatsoever, and almost in every story everything bad that could happen, just happened and it just became so bad for me.

None of these stories would be as powerful as they were without its great acting from the cast. Brad Pitt does a great job here and plays one of his earlier stronger roles, along with Cate Blanchett who is his servery injured wife. But the best out of the performances was the Japanese girl played by Rinko Kikuchi who makes this film even more tragic as a young girl who just wants to have sex to get rid of her own pain and anguish, and she plays it so very well.

Consensus: Babel is a very depressing film, but is has a wonderful message, with great writing and directing, along with realistic writing, and a powerful film even when the credits are done rolling.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!

Hostel (2005)

Germany is such a really fucked up placed after all.

American backpacking students Paxton (Jay Hernandez) and Josh (Derek Richardson) head to a hostel in Slovakia rumored to be brimming with willing women — but instead, they become objects of torture in an unimaginable house of twisted horrors.

What else is better than watching a film that is so disturbingly disgusting that the food your eating comes right out of your mouth, and you can’t finish it? I’ll tell you what’s better, everything.

Though Saw is credited with starting the whole torture porn craze, Hostel is sort of the film that really did first start pushing the boundaries. And when I’m talking about boundaries, I mean BOUNDRIESSS.

The one thing I will say about this film is that a lot of the things that happen actually will make you turn away from the screen. It is torture at its finest that does get under your skin, and will probably make you very queasy.

Director and writer Eli Roth has a real fascination for these tortures and that really comes out in this film. He does not once shy away from being too graphic, and I credit him for that. But, the one thing I will say about this film is that other than the merciless torturing there isn’t really much else.

The first 50 minutes show these two young guys just boning women left and right, and it acted more of a bad teen comedy than a horror film. This really does make the film drag, and takes about an hour until the violence actually begins. The mood has this sudden change on two losers on a quest to get some, and then to this sudden amount of violence. However, because of the pacing this makes the violence scenes of the film seem very short and takes away from the overall effect.

Though I’m not going to lie that the film did live up to the gross-out level I was expecting, and by the end of the film it kind of started to get better. It turned into a revenge/on the run story which made me cheer on the lead character as it was going on.

The acting is OK to say the least. I didn’t have a problem with the acting as much as I did with how these characters were shown to be. I felt like the character development wasn’t that well done, and could have been better to create more memorable and likable protagonists.

Consensus: Hostel proves to be extremely violent, filled with plenty of gore and guts, and shows that Eli Roth loves his creations, but its pacing is very mishandled, the characters weren’t very likable, and starts out very bad which lessens the effect of the film.

6.5/10=Rental!!!!

Jackie Brown (1997)

God damn do I love Tarantino!!!!!!

Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is an aging flight attendant who smuggles cash on the side. But when she’s busted and pressured to help with an investigation, she plans to play the opposing forces against each other and walk away with the dough. Others include Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Robert Forster, and Robert De Niro.

This film was made 3 years after Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. Both of them have almost the same qualities: colorful characters, gritty life styles, twists and turns, and highly inventive dialogue.

I think this is one of the movie’s that show Tarantino at his best. Savoring the words and little details of behavior that make his characters so colorful and memorable. The film has all these different characters in one way or another all meet up and each scene is so memorable, cause you have these characters that you already know from their dialouge and both different personalities meet in all these different situations, and how it all happens is just perfect.

When I first heard about this film with Pam Grier as the lead cast, and the theme song “Across 110th Street”, I was expecting this to be Tarantino’s riff on blaxploitation films. However, I didn’t get that at all. Grier plays this run-down airline attendant who is tired and may lose the last job she’s ever going to get, and mostly worried about the subject of getting old. She is so laid back and smart, that you really do root for this woman, and just wish that she comes out on top.

The rest of the cast is really good too. Samuel L. Jackson does one of his better jobs as a lead bad guy who is so vicious and cruel, that at times you start to actually like him. But out of the whole cast, Robert Forster does one of the best jobs in a supporting role as a bail bondsman. The other main story is the love interest between Jackie Brown and Forster, and for those little scenes they have on screen together the chemistry is very rich and feels real. I’m still wondering how this didn’t revive their careers.

I mean for me this is not one of my favorites as a problem I had with his other film, Inglorious Basterds. That one as this, has so much damn talking, and none of it really leads to anything climactic. The suspense for the film was great and kept me on the edge of my seat of what was going to happen next, but the unnecessary scenes and talking sort of became too much of an annoyance for myself.

To say this is better than Pulp Fiction would be insane, but maybe a bit better Reservoir Dogs, and definitely Grindhouse. For people who love Tarantino check this one out because it will have everything you love from him, and maybe more, just minus some of the crazy violence.

Consensus: Jackie Brown has the charm and wit in the screenplay, with great acting, and a suspenseful story, but just needed to cut down on that talking in order to keep me more entertained.

9/10=Full Priceee!!!!

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)

If I spent Christmas with these people, I think I’d go Jewish for the holidays.

A break from the frenetic activity that surrounds Christmas is what Luther and Nora Krank (Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis) have in mind when they decide that, for once, they’ll skip the holiday. They’ll nix the tree, all the ornaments and their rooftop Frosty, and forgo the chore of hosting their annual Christmas Eve bash. That’s the plan, anyway. Question is, can they deal with the fallout from crestfallen neighbors and even their own family?

Now, for this Holiday season  I have been reviewing some movies that have to do with well, Christmas. And after watching this and How The Grinch Stole Christmas, I think it’s time to stop soon.

Now the one thing that struck me as totally over the top, was that the whole neighborhood of this Chicago suburb celebrated Christmas in such a big way, and when The Kranks tell everyone that their not celebrating Christmas, literally everyone acts like they have just committed a child-kidnapping. They all acted as if they were Nazis, who say u must have Christmas or you can no longer live in the neighborhood any longer.

The jokes are just so terrible in this film. I mean honestly the slapstick just got way too forced by the middle of this film. Almost everything that The Kranks did had to end up in something bad happening to them or something around them. The screenplay was so dumb and stupid, that i actually wondered who the hell wrote this piece of crap!?!??! Honestly, you can’t have a Christmas film without even making one reference about Jesus or religion. I mean last time I checked its his birthday so why not even make a mention of it.

The one thing I will say about this film is that Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis do try hard with this crappy script. Nothing just came out as funny during this whole movie, no matter how much the whole cast tried.

Consensus: Christmas With The Kranks is not funny, terribly written, and should not ever be watched for the Christmas Holdiay.

1/10=SomeOleBullShiittt!!!!!

Savior (1998)

Now if Dennis Quaid was my savior, I think that would be pretty boss.

After his wife and child are killed in a terrorist bombing, Joshua Rose (Dennis Quaid) joins the French Foreign Legion. Six years later, fighting as a mercenary in the Yugoslav civil war, he saves a pregnant Serbian (Natasa Ninkovic) from a killer Serb (Sergej Trifunovic) and reconnects with his humanity.

So, basically I took one look at this film and said,”I don’t know I think I should give it a shot”. It was the one and only time that I actually listened to Netflix’s “More Like This”, and I should start doing that more often.

With the end of the cold war, most wars are regional civil wars like the one in Bosnia. The war seems insane when we watch news footage on TV. This movie does a great job of trying to explain the reason for the war. Most people of the region are decent and peaceful, but enough thugs on both sides turn their lives into horror.

The film is very violent and at times a little bit too hard to watch. People get killed in the most gruesome ways left and right, and when you see the dead bodies its even more disturbing as to how real they look. It shows the real nature of how war can be so vicious and cruel that almost everyone will die, in one horrible way or another.

The film does move very slow in a lot of parts. It almost takes forever to get from one part of the story to another, but when it actually does your glad it took so long.

I felt like the message the film was trying to bring out kind of gets taken aback by the story itself. I mean there is so much killing, violence, and revenge that I was more rooting for Quiad rather even worrying about the other people around him.

Dennis Quaid is one of the real reasons why this film works. His stripped-down, and emotionally raw performance will keep you rooting for him every time throughout the whole film. Natasa Ninkovic is also good as the young girl who really doesn’t have much acting skills but with the character she is given, she does a great job.

Consensus: Though its message may be fired away at points, Savior features a great performance by Quaid, and a visceral but true look on the war and its effects.

8/10=Matinee!!!

Wild at Heart (1990)

A road trip straight from the mind of David Lynch.

A star-crossed couple on the lam (Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern) is in for the most gruesome ride of their lives when they encounter a handful of bizarre — and perhaps murderous — strangers (played by the likes of Sheryl Lee and Willem Dafoe).

The one thing for me and this film is that I’m not a very huge fan of Lynch. However, Cage has been starting to grow on me and I actually heard this was actually good, so I felt like I should give it a try. Now that I look at it, I’m glad I made that decision.

First off I could already tell that this was one of Lynch’s most normal films. Yeah there is the little random weird things on the course of the film, but overall the subject material is a pretty normal story.

Right off the batch I noticed that this romance between Cage and Dern is probably one of the most true and passionate love stories I have seen in a long time. The film itself is parodying those old Elvis romance films, but by doing that it is creating a genuine love story itself.

Now this is my one big problem with this film. Lynch by the end of the film really does start to destroy this great here, by being too much like himself. Lynch marries the style of these two-characters in love story with The Wizard Of Oz theme of hope. That’s all fun until the very back of this film, throw away bits of flies on vomit, rape, nudity, a head blown off, cockroaches in underwear, and on, and on with all this non-sense does start to ruin this great love story the film had working for itself right here.

Lynch wants to deal with most shocking material possible just so he can get viewers to be so disturbed by what they are seeing, and then for some reason end with a little punch-line that is a joke. I feel like he does that a couple of times in this film, and I hated it every time he tries to hide behind his violence with the corn ball laughs. For me, this rarely ever seems to work so he should just give it right up.

Nicolas Cage gives off a great charismatic performance here as a sort of Elvis Presley impersonation, while Laura Dern does a great throwback performance to the blond-bombshells of older films. They both have a ridiculous chemistry that ends up pouring out into the story, making this romance one of the most beautiful in film history. Also, the performance given by Diane Ladd as Dern’s mother is also quite good and brings a lot more humor to the film.

For me the film at times was so good, that I just hated how Lynch had to put his crazy own elements into it. Until the very end is when he starts to lose it, and really did start to lose me.

Consensus: Wild At Heart has a genuine and beautiful romance, much ado to the great chemistry between Cage and Dern, but gets blown away by Lynch’s need to make the film very odd and strange. The film is a hit or miss for most, but I just wanted to see less of craziness and more of love.

8/10=Matinee!!!

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

This was not needed at all!!

Dr. Seuss’s much-loved tome about the real meaning of Christmas finally makes it to the big screen, with comic wunderkind Jim Carrey starring in the titular role of a green-faced gnome who plots to rob Whoville of the Yuletide. Several songs from the classic 1966 animated cartoon have also made the transition. Pass that last can of Who Hash, will ya?

So to get in the holiday spirit, I decided I need to start watching some Christmas films. I think after watching this, I’m going to stick to classics.

You would think with such a film that is aimed towards children for Christmas, that it would be full of glee and fun, when really that is not what we get at all. This is at times a strange and grim movie with little bits and pieces of comedy coming in.

The film is marketed towards kids when really I don’t even know if kids will laugh at this, more of like being terrified. I mean just look at The Grinch and don’t tell me when you were a small kid that the face of him made you a little creeped out. There are also these little creepy pedophile underlining themes between The Grinch and the main little girl, that I found myself even more creeped out by.

The set direction and look is pretty good, despite it being out there. But really I didn’t find the look mesmerizing. I found a lot of the colors to be a bit tainted and dragged, and the towns people looked as ugly as The Grinch himself. Now, don’t get me wrong here some of the old cartoons were a tad creepy as well, but these people along with The Grinch just looked very terrifying and very very strange.

Jim Carrey does a greta job as the title character. He really does use everything in his crazy arsenal to fully embody this character that we see from the characters, but make him a lot goofier and silly than what we imagined.

When I think about how bad this movie was too, Ron Howard directed this!! Yes, that Ron Howard!!! Come on man, you can do so much better. To be truly honest I think this was just a total money grab for box office success, and well the devil lives on, as it was #1 for about three weeks.

Consensus: Jim Carrey shines as The Grinch, but cannot save this emotionaless, gloomy, and uninspired tale from just being another terrible remake.

2/10=SomeOleeeBullShiittt!!!!

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

I can only hope that this guy can redeem himself after that piece of crap Cruising.

After ace counterfeiter Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe) murders the partner of Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William Petersen), the gumshoe will stop at nothing to even the score. Big problem, though: Masters is, well, a master at the game and outfoxes Chance at every turn. Can Chance outwit him?

I must say compared to a lot of other films that William Friedkin has directed, this is a very good one to add to his collection. Nobody has really ever heard of this film, but now they should cause you actually are missing something that’s good.

The action in this film keeps it really exciting. There are a couple of good fighting/shooting scenes that at times are very unpredictable. But the one great part of action that stands out in my mind is that great car chase scene that lasts for about 10 minutes, but really is something to see.

There are little twists and turns in this film that actually do keep you on the edge of your seat and guessing. They aren’t huge twists and turns but when they happen your mostly like “wow, what’s going to happen next?”.

For me the film felt too much like another 80s cop classic, Miami Vice. The really cheesy soundtrack done by Wang Chun made a lot of the scenes that were supposed to be action-packed seem a bit too lame. The screenplay was a bit more dated than what I was expecting but at the same token there were still little lame lines like, “I will stop at nothing to find him”.

The setting was one of the better parts of the film, but the one problem I had with the film was its gritty look. It seemed almost like they were just adding in all this dirty stuff just to put it in and have an adult film. There are too many random scenes of people having sex which after awhile just start to seem more desperate than actually real.

Willem Dafoe gives a great supporting performance, but the thing was is that I didn’t get to see enough of him as much as I wanted to. Petersen really did surprise me with this performance, as I felt he was going to have a horrible performance, but I was sadly mistaken as he showed he actually can carry a movie as the leading man.

Consensus: Great action, impressive acting, and an interesting story all keep To Live and Die In L.A. on its toes, but in the years to come has been very dated with its various cliches, and random gritty look.

7/10=Rental!!!!

Mean Streets (1973)

Scorsese doing what Scorsese does best.

Charlie (Harvey Keitel) deals with the pressures of working his way up the ranks of a local mob, while coping with his family’s disapproval of his epileptic girlfriend (Amy Robinson). Meanwhile, his small-time gambler friend, Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), threatens to ruin Charlie’s reputation with debts to a loan shark.

So this is the third film by Scorsese, and once again he is takling the subject of mobsters in New York. This is probably his first as you can see when watching it.

The film is highly original and features a lot of Scorsese’s trademarks that would show in plenty of his later films. First of all the screenplay is so well-written and real. The way it is written as if this was real-life, the characters are serious when they want to be, even funnier when they want to be, and a lot of just all seems real and believable.

The soundtrack is great it is filled with some amazing and eclectic music ranging from orchestra, to jazz, and then to like old pop. The songs layer out all of the scenes and add a lot more style and excitement into that one particular scene.

I also liked the setting and how it basically felt like a character itself. If you want a film to see what Little Italy looked like in 1973, here it is. It is filmed with such a gritty look, that makes this film seem so real and a lot more nasty and cruel than what it tries to give us.

The only problem I had with this film was the way it was filmed. I thought that Scorsese tried to go back and forth in between scenes way too many times, to where I was kind of confused. They never really give us a chance to soak the story in, and I felt rushed to learn everything about this film and its characters right away or I was going to be lost.

The ending also felt a little too rushed and didn’t really serve any true meaning or message. It felt rushed and a little too quick for and ending.

Harvey Keitel shows off some great leading man strength in one of his earlier films here. But the best in the film is De Niro who gives this look at a guy who’s so cocky, and so dastardly, that you wanted to cheer him on, despite he was such a dick.

Consensus: Mean Streets is highly original with great acting, a wild soundtrack, and a beautiful setting, but feels a bit too rushed and not all that there with its message.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!!!!

Scrooged (1988)

Bill Murray would be the best scrooge of all-time.

Cold-hearted TV exec Bill Murray is about to discover the true meaning of Christmas — the hard way. This wild, woolly spin on Dickens’s A Christmas Carol sees Murray visited by three high-spirited spirits … and while there are laughs aplenty, Murray’s reformation and redemption are immensely powerful.

The film is basically a modern re-telling of the Dickens’s novel A Christmas Carol. We see all things that we have seen in others: how much of a jerk the main character is, three different ghosts, and as always the change at the end of the story.

The film is a basic and humorous take on a lot of the TV industry. There were little inside, ironic jokes that actually did make me laugh. They weren’t forced even if they did seem a little lackluster at points.

I felt at times though it was a bit of a cheap imitation of Murray’s highly other famous film, Ghostbusters. Some jokes are more obvious than others, but once you hear them you will know exactly what the lame reference is. Also, many jokes that happened were funny, but they kept on going on and on with them to the point of where I was just annoyed.

Bill Murray looks like he is having a lot of fun with this film all the way throughout. The ad-libs he uses are funny, and he plays this character that goes through many transitions and doesn’t seem unbelievable at all.

The ending is what had me cringe a lot more than others. In every little Christmas movie there’s always a sweet and poignant little message. That sweet and little message was kind of ruined here, as Murray delivers the final message in a very awkward and shouting way to where you don’t even seem like your having a good time.

Consensus: Not the ideal Christmas film, Scrooged with its style and humor, but features a good lead performance from Murray and at times funny jokes.

6/10=Rental!!!

Freedomland (2005)

Wish I knew more about this film before going in, but regardless still had a good experience.

When a single mother (Julianne Moore) reports that her infant son was murdered by a black man from the projects, an intrepid African-American detective (Samuel L. Jackson) and a white journalist (Edie Falco) team up to dig for details. But what they unearth is hard to believe.

I didn’t know much about this film, until my friend Mike told me I should check it out. Thankfully I for him I was glad, if it was bad his ass would have been kicked.

So the film does some really good things with the material its given. Its a typical detetctive mystery suspense story, but with little themes of racism. There were a couple of really effective and powerful scenes that really did sell the message here.

The other good thing about this film is that the powerful performances really is what makes it work. Samuel L. Jackson gives one of his more calm and complex performances, and Julianne Moore is very good as the woman who has never done anything right until a son came into her life. Both performances were very strong but the one that really stuck in my mind was Edia Falco. She gives a very strong performance, and when left alone to emote at the end of the film, she completely outstrips the rest of the cast.

The problem with this film is that things happen without us even knowing why they are even happening. Joe Roth has directed some real turkeys in his day (Christmas With The Kranks, Revenge Of The Nerds II), and he starts to add on a lot more themes than what we originally had. He should have just stuck with the familiar source material, and not add anything new on to where he thinks it would make the film better.

One more thing is that the dialogue by the end of the film starts to get pretty lame. In the beginning, it did hold my interest but by the end it really starts to get over zealously cheesy. There are lines that I have heard many times from plenty of other films that were somewhat incorporated into the film.

Consensus: With a strong enough story, and some pretty good performances, Freedomland kept my interest enough to skate by with a positive. But lackluster directing, unexplained happenings, and some pretty cliche lines make this film almost terrible.

5/10=Rental!!!

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009)

Respect for Nicolas Cage goes wayyyyyy uppp!!!!

Corrupt Det. Terence McDonaugh (Nicolas Cage) — whose bad habits include pain drugs, reckless sports gambling and accepting sexual bribes — investigates the murder of five Senegalese illegal immigrants in New Orleans.

The original film back in 1992, was actually good, considering I saw it about 2 years ago. But, both films have the same material but are completely different by the way they are filmed and told.

Director Werner Herzog really does prove that he is one of the most fearless and creative directors out there. He takes this source material that we are familiar with and adds all these different and insane things that we have never really seen before. I mean tell me, have you ever seen a camera shot from the viewpoint of an iguana? I would think not. There are so many other cool things Herzog does but to list them would take way too long.

None of this movie should have worked but somehow it does. I think it gets very whacked out when Cage starts to take drugs and go crazy, and this is when you could have just called it a day. However, crazy shit goes down that keeps your attention, and at times, I found most of the scene s to be highly suspenseful.

The cosmic, sleazy, and sometimes scuzzy jokes that were made in this film were just really great. Herzog doesn’t try to hide that there are jokes and it can be looked at as a comedy. The film soon, if not sooner, will be an instantaneous quotable film sooner or later.

The one problem I had with the film was that it just wasn’t great enough. There were some little sub-plots that didn’t really quite work out well as the main story did, and compared to Herzog’s others, there aren’t really any mezmerizing visuals here. It tries to act too much like a noir but really just falls flat as coming off as another comedy-drama cop film.

When Nic Cage is on fire, I don’t think any theater can hold him. He is absolute amazing in this film, and gives off one of the best performances from him in the past 10 years. He is so funny, so loopy. and so crazy, that despite his destructive life, you can’t help but to just love the guy and root for him throughout.

Consensus: Compared to its original there are no comparisons. This film contains a never-back-down direction from Herzog, some hilarious moments, and one of the greatest performances from Cage.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

Disaster Movie (2008)

Never has a title for one film fit so well!!

Trapped in a city as temblors, tornadoes and asteroids ravage the land, three terrified friends (Carmen Electra, Kim Kardashian and Vanessa Minnillo) get swept up in a series of wacky adventures as they look for a way to stop the onslaught of natural disasters.

So this is directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the same asshole responsible for those shit turds of films Meet The Spartans, Date Movie, and Epic Movie. And right now these guys need to be stopped!

Each one of these movies they’ve been known to just be parodies, they kind of have some sort of a thread of a plot, but most of it is just referring to whatever movie was popular at the time. You would honestly think that by looking at the title and the poster to the right, that this whole film would be parodying the disaster movie genre. However my friends, that is exactly where your wrong!! The only parodying of disaster movies in this one is that there is just apparently a string of disasters that happen, and no parody of the disaster film itself. WTF!!!

I loved how in the end of the film they said it “was written by..” when really absolute no one wrote this piece of crap. Honestly, the directors probably just went on IMDB and did a quick search and see all the popular trailers, and dress people up in the costumes, and just parody the shit out of these wayy better films.

There is a wrestling scene between Kardashian and Electra and I was ready to see all the T & A’s flying everywhere, and somehow in the world they manage to fuck that up as well. How can you get two chicks wrestling each other in little clothing and mess it alllll uppp????!!!!!

Consensus: Basically the film is just a piece of huge turd that shouldn’t be watched by anybody especially with a group of friends, cause nobody will laugh. And if they do kill them right on the spot.

0/10=Fuckkkk Thissss Crappppp!!!!!!!!!!!

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

One of the worst pulled-off heists ever in film!

To get money for his gay lover’s sex-change operation, Sonny (Al Pacino) — who’s married with kids — teams up with Sal (John Cazale) to rob a New York bank on a scorching-hot summer day. The stickup goes awry when the press gets wind of the circus sideshow-esque story.

To actually know that this is actually happened is a lot more upsetting than what this movie gives us. To actually think that this whole hold-up went for almost a whole day is pretty sad, but also cinema gold!

The one great thing about this film is its wonderful and easy-minded direction from one of cinema’s best, Sidney Lumet. He does a great job at balancing together suspense, violence, humor, and a great little character study. At the beginning we just think of these people as horrible and evil criminals. But by the end, we start to understand that they are just like people same as you and me, that were put into a situation that only took crime to get out of.

This is structured like a typical heist film, but its really a portrait of a scene of a community that all comes together around this horrible incident. The writing is rich with wonderful characters and one of the main anti-establishment works of the generation. The writing shows how this man Sonny has love and compassion for other people, and is really not a horrible guy.

The film breaks down all the stereotypes that all these mad-men that create hold-ups are crazy killers. This shows they are not and most likely shows how the media swerves around it looking for the best story they can make out of the actual facts.

The one thing that threw me off a lot was that by the end of the film, I felt like it dived more into the homosexual stereotypes that were around in the 1970s. It wasn’t that this was horrible, it just felt like it wasn’t quite needed if supposed to be treated so huge after all.

Pacino, honestly gives one of the better performances of his career here. He makes this highly original character into someone just totally and utterly believable. You feel the pain and aggression he feels, and I related to him so much more than I what I thought I would have. The supporting cast does a great job with Chris Sarandon, John Cazale, and Charles Durning.

Consensus: Dog Day Afternoon shows an anti-establishment look on a real life event, and makes it more genuine, and heartfelt, backed by an amazing performance from Al Pacino.

9/10=Full Pricee!!!

The Way of the Gun (2000)

God what a violent weekend it has been for me!

Criminals Longbaugh (Benicio Del Toro) and Parker (Ryan Phillippe) kidnap a pregnant surrogate mother (Juliette Lewis) for a $15 million ransom from the baby’s gangster father in Oscar-winning writer Christopher MacQuarrie’s (The Usual Suspects) directorial debut. But as the duo waits in Mexico with the woman in tow, they discover they may be in over their heads.

When I saw the trailer for this film I was not so impressed one bit. I was expecting a high action packed thriller, with high energy due to its song being “Break Stuff” by Limp Bizkit. But what I got from that trailer was totally different than what I ended up with.

There are a lot of good things that go with this film. First of all, the action is very top-notched. There are plenty of well-choreographed shooting scenes that turn out to be exciting and very smart to watch.

Secondly, the acting is actually quite good in the film. Phillippe and Del Toro have good chemistry as you would expect, and play as these villains in the beginning, but slowly by the end you start to root for them. The best performance comes from James Caan here who gives a solid supporting performance, and shows that he won’t be out acted by a bunch of youngsters.

Everything seems like it can work for this film, but the one problem that MacQuarrie can’t overcome is the really choppy editing. At some parts you have these little cheesy heart-to-hearts, then at one point you have this gun slinging action fight, then you have another tail of deception. I felt like there was so much crammed into this film that there wasn’t any time for it to all develop.

Another thing I didn’t like about the film was that all its lies, deceptions, twists, and turns really started to become an annoyance for me. I really wish they just focused on the story at hand, rather than trying to create all these other not-needed stories where everything doesn’t turn out to be what it seems.

Consensus: The Way Of The Gun has some high-quality action, and top-notch acting, but can’t overcome its sloppy and sluggish editing.

5.5/10=Rental!!

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Request from my bud Matt. Keep on sending requests everyone so I can review one of yours.

When Mr. Fox’s nightly raids on three nearby farms raise the ire of the selfish farmers, he must outwit the men’s increasingly outrageous plans to catch him in this animated adaption of the Roald Dahl book. As the farmers’ schemes take a toll on his hungry family, Mr. Fox must find a new way to get his paws on the bounty. Wes Anderson directs, and George Clooney, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman lend their voice-over talents.

The one thing I may note about this film is that it has the appeal to younger children with its cute animation, and PG rating. But the jokes here will probably be too smart for children, and most likely go over their heads. I don’t think there’s anything inappropriate here, but it surely isn’t for the kiddies.

Once again, Wes Anderson allows us to see the world through his eyes. I think it is so cool that Anderson can make an animated film, and you can still look at it knowing its a Wes Anderson movie. Basically anything that seems tired in a live-action movie, completely works here. Cause your not used to seeing a badger puppet do the same things that a human would do in another Wes Anderson film.

The visuals for this film are very splendid. It looks so good, and very exciting. You feel like you are seeing a world with these creatures, but also with these humans and not only does it move along real well with the animation, at some points it looks too good to be true.

I did like some of the humor for this film, I just didn’t think it held up quite as well in this as it does with plenty of others from Wes Anderson. There is little quirky and quick jokes that are amusing at first, but then at times the jokes feel a bit too forced and not placed all too well.

Clooney as Mr, Fox wasn’t the best choice to be truly honest. I felt like he was being too much of George Clooney and not trying to be Fantastic Mr. Fox, like he was put out to be. The best job here is Schwartzman, who although is playing a young teenager, still seems believable as a teen full of angst and trying to look for understanding in his life.

Consensus: Fantastic Mr. Fox is cute, at times funny, and visually splendid. I just didn’t feel like the jokes were too flattering, and the voices could have been a bit better.

7/10=Rental!!!!

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1990)

What was I getting myself into when I was watching this piece of work!!!

Serial killer Henry (Michael Rooker) serves as mentor to dim-witted fellow killer Otis and as the object of his sister’s affections. Trouble is, Henry’s heart is too hard for friendship to penetrate.

This film was made in 1986, but couldn’t get an R rating from the MPAA ratings board. Finally, in 1990 it went into limited nationwide release, and to be truly honest I can see why it took so long for many people to be so shocked and disturbed.

There are plenty of scenes within this film that are absolutely hard to take. There is one scene that sticks into my mind the most, and that’s when they videotape a murder that they did. That scene disturbed me the most and really did sell the whole disturbing level for me.

I liked especially how the film showed us a passionate and also great look at Henry, the serial killer. There are people out there who do stuff like this just for simple fun, and its time for us to understand that they are people just like you and me. The films murders and the whole element of the film was more serious than just making a joy-ride of these slashing murders.

The only reason I give this profoundly upsetting film only a mild rating, is because it has lost some punch over the years, with the subsequent release of so many even grislier pictures. Even this is upsetting, since it just adds to the film’s overall questioning tone. What kind of world is it, that can make acts like these, and people like Henry and Otis, seem almost normal, hideous acts of pointless murder merely boring and annoying, and the callous actions of these men almost justifiable in the face of the harshness and futility of life as they know it? The camera offers no suggestions or comment, instead just rolling on the action mechanically, like Otis’s camcorder, and offering no view of any better world, one that must exist somewhere outside the half life of ignorance and violence that they take for granted.

Rooker as Henry is great here. He gives us the unsympathetic and at the same token very well-mannered person. Every scene he has is just creepy, and overall disturbing. Rooker never loses his touch in any of the scenes and I just found myself to be fully memorized by the way he handled this character.

Consensus: Though it’s not for everyone, Henry is disturbing, violent, harsh, and ultimately smart. It features a great look at a serial killer that has no remorse, and shows us how these people are just like you and me.

8/10=Matineee!!!!

Better Off Dead (1985)

Don’t we all just feel like this at one point in our lives.

After his girlfriend (Amanda Wyss) ditches him for a boorish ski jock (Aaron Dozier), Lane Meyer (John Cusack) decides that suicide is the only answer. But his increasingly inept attempts to off himself only bring more agony and embarrassment. Dan Schneider co-stars as Lane’s socially awkward neighbor, Ricky, whose mother takes in a foreign exchange student from France (Diane Franklin), only to meet with an explosive end.

I basically went into this film without any knowledge whatsoever, if it was good or bad. I luckily came out with a good side, and probably think this could be one of my favorite teen comedies of the 80s.

The film does a real great job at combining all these three different styles of comedy with Black, surreal, and mostly all absurdest. The film had a lot of serious and actually straigh-forward messages, but they were all broken down with the hilarious and at times random pieces of jokes.

There are little running gags in this film that really made me laugh. There is this paperboy that doesn’t get his two dollars from Cusack’s family, so throughout the whole film he just chases after Cusack. You would think this would get boring, but this and plenty of other running gags are just too hilarious to hate.

This may be an odd complaint but I feel like there wasn’t enough dark jokes about suicide or anything like that. In the beginning of the film there are little funny jokes about it, but never really did it go over the edge with it. I think this would have made the film a lot more insightful and also a lot more funny as it progressed.

By the end of the film, it starts to deride itself into a more natural romantic comedy film. I really felt this was not needed one bit, and by the end really did ruin it. There were so many little messages about suicide, friends, and love that were well brought out, but this end of the film really did destroy all those messages it was trying to give off.

John Cusack gives a very good performance here as the lovable loser type we all know and love him for. I felt myself cheering for him as the film went along, and I really did believe him as this young and heart-broken teen.

Consensus: Better Off Dead has hilarious blends of comedy and a noteworthy perforance from a young Cusack, but destorys itself with the last 30 minutes, and descending into a romantic comedy feel.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

What Women Want (2000)

Now that I look at it, is Mel Gibson really what women want?

Advertising executive Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) is as cocky as they come. But what happens to a chauvinistic guy when he can suddenly hear what women are thinking? Nick gets passed over for a promotion, but after an accident enables him to hear woman’s thoughts, he puts his new found talent to work against Darcy (Helen Hunt), his new boss, who seems to be infatuated with him.

The premise for this movie is what actually at first attracted me to the film (other than my undying love for Mel Gibson). But it takes something that all guys want to have the ability to do, and that is read what’s going on in chicks’ minds. This films uses that exact idea very well, and gives us plenty of funny moments, where we hear some hilarious but also true things that women are thinking.

The film is more silly than it is actually funny. The film reminded me a lot about another film, Tootsie. They both have the same idea that these guys who are total jerks start to understand how women feel and are. Hoffman, dressed up as a woman, and Gibson hearing woman’s thoughts. He hears these thoughts and really he isn’t the guy he thinks he is. People hate him, and don’t find him that attractive, which provided plenty of laughs along the way.

Though I thought the film was at times very funny, it did fail at many points. First, it clocks in at about 125 minutes, which is simply far too long for a film trying to make it as a breezy romantic comedy. And make no mistake, you will notice the pacing, especially after you realize you had to sit through two completely superfluous subplots and an entire five-minute scene that simply had no business making it out of the editing suite alive.

When Mel Gibson gets the ability to hear what women are thinking, why are we spending an entire sequence 30 minutes into the film watching him try to get rid of his dubious gift? We know he’s going to fail because we’ve got 90 minutes remaining to kill, and the scene’s not even funny to boot, a fact which is only hammered home repeatedly when he pulls the same gags that got him into this jam in the first place. That kind of sloppy screenwriting and editing doesn’t bode well.

It was a surprise to see Mel Gibson in his first romantic comedy role as he does very well with his material. He just show a lot of charm and is a guy that you want to hate, but can’t really cause of how likable he actually is. The women in the cast also are very good, as they speak from their minds and you can sort of see their reactions on the screen of what their saying, and it all seems very realistic.

Consensus: With some hilarious moments and a charming lead performance from Gibson, What Women Want shines in some places but is brought down by some choppy editing, meaningless sub plots, and a time limit of over 2 hours that is very unneeded.

6/10=Rental!!

Harry Brown (2009)

Don’t let looks fool you, Michael Caine is still one hell of a bad-ass.

When a crew of drug-dealing gang members takes the life of his only friend, Leonard (David Bradley), retired Marine and widower Harry Brown (Michael Caine) decides to take the law into his own hands.

Now, what really pisses me off about this film, is that for a lot of Americans, they won’t be able to see this, due to its only release in Britain. And must I say that wow, you guys are really missing out on a lot.

While watching the film this is clearly the British ‘Gran Torino’ meets ‘Death Wish’ with a little bit of ‘Outlaw’ but that doesn’t ruin the film it’s just very noticeble.

The movie had me gripped from start to finish and although, apart from Harry, alot of the characters seem a bit two dimensional they are like that for a reason, so you are cheering everytime one of em gets it in the face, I mean it’s not a movie bout what a hard life these kids have had, although there is one boy that you get that sence with, it’s about justice for the wicked. Oh and if you don’t think that these guys are realistic then you ain’t met some of the people I have.

The cinematography is good and so is the sound track and both give you a great feeling of how grimey the place Harry lives in is as well as portraying the different emotions expressed in the movie.

The only problem I had with this film was that there are so many times it could have just shined when really it just doesn’t. The script isn’t that good, and to be brutally honest, there aren’t any instantaneous quotable or catchy lines in this film like Gran Torino.

Another problem with this film and it’s nothing that really maters but, even though it’s probably cheap, film makers should know that CG blood is not the way to do things. I know it affords more control but it just looks so fake… SO STOP DOING IT!

Michael Caine is suprisingly believable in this film as a gun toting mad man on revenge. He doesn’t come off as too cheesy, and he actually does show some weaknesses and comes off as being a normal human being. Some of the side performances weren’t great, although some of the teens did have some OK little strong performances, but nothing really special.

Consensus: Harry Brown isn’t great, but features great action, a very convincing performance from Caine, and an interesting, if done before, story.

8.5/10=Matinee!!

Taking Woodstock (2009)

One of the biggest parties of the centuries, that nobody who saw this was apart of.

A twenty something man (Demetri Martin) finds his life forever changed in the summer of 1969 when he offers up his parents’ motel in the Catskills as a home base for Woodstock organizers and helps the show go on by donating an all-important music festival permit.

Based on the Elliot Tiber novel, the films aims to tell what happened behind the scenes. Many viewers though looking for spectacular concert footage, will find themselves leaving and wanting a lot more than they got, such as I did myself.

Now, for people that wanted to see all the love and music that was put into Woodstock, go check out the documentary Woodstock. This one doesn’t feature any of the performances, which kind of made me a little ticked off knowing that I wanted to see Woodstock itself, and not necessarily this dysfunctional family that had to deal with it.

The film also has those bunch of crazy cliches that surround the 60s. You got the pot smokers, LSD doers, transvestites, naked hippies, and of course the ones always rolling in the mud. I was expecting a different more fresh look at the crowd rather than just seeing everything that I already know I’m going to see, from a film about the 60s.

Now all that said, the film looks exactly like it was in the 60s during Woodstock. I really did feel like I was apart of this, and this is what made the film a lot more entertaining for me. Director Ang Lee, does a great job at re-imagining these beautiful and cultural images from Woodstock that we all know.

The film isn’t as funny as it just a little cute coming-of-age drama. I liked how the film explored all the ways this nerdy guy tries to become part of this hippie movement, but also has a lot of differences with all of them. Ang Lee also uses the split-screen documentary style to show everything that is going on and it really does work here, and captures the same exact essence the documentary did.

The performances weren’t that good, but they were OK. I wish Demetri Martin was more funny, and to be truly honest I think he was sort of miss cast. The colorful characters that surround him are made up of superstars like Paul Dano, Emile Hirsch, and the real saving grace of this film for me, Liev Schreiber. He is funny as this transvestite, and every time is on-screen brings out a whole bunch of laughs within me.

Consensus: Taking Woodstock has the usual 60s cliches that you would expect, not a lot of hilarious comedy, and an underwhelming atmosphere, but captures the look and feel of Woodstock, and has some nice moments.

5.5/10=Rental!!!

My Own Private Idaho (1991)

I feel like I’ve been watching a bit too much Van Sant.

Gus Van Sant’s indie hit hones in on the friendship between Mike (River Phoenix) and Scott (Keanu Reeves), two hustlers living on the streets of gritty Portland, whose relationship stumbles when they hit the road to find Mike’s mother, and Scott falls for a woman. Scott’s lifestyle is his way of embarrassing his rich, oppressive father, while Mike is a narcoleptic who’s in love with Scott but maintains he’s straight.

Gus Van Sant is known for making great portrait at how the human emotions all work. However, with this one he really digs into just the emotions of these two and how they feel, even when one is narcoleptic.

The gritty look is what makes this film legit. These are two hustlers living on the streets, and getting money from clients that are even dirtier. I found myself memorized by how this gritty look wasn’t just realistic, but actually made me feel like I was with them when filming was going on.

My Own Private Idaho is a lot of things, and one of them is a comedy. Van Sant has a sly off-beat sense of humor. They use this ability with its timing, in order to frame a dramatic scene so that its not only seen as serious but sometimes strangely funny and odd. There are little elements of dark humor, as with Phoenix’s’ character is always falling asleep throughout the whole film.

This film is also a lot more complicating than others of this nature. It moves at a very slow pace, and never really picks up steam with its character flow. They talk constantly, and also River whenever he does it is only for a short amount of time, cause then he falls right back asleep. I also felt like these characters needed more explanation as well as the decisions. I wanted to know these characters more and more, but was never really given that opportunity since we just find out that they are only hustlers.

The characters also have a willingness to live and be free with themselves. We can feel that not just every scene is divided into the points that had to be made, instead they are made as in a way that they feel like their living, and basically doing nothing. Most scenes went on longer than we expected, and I liked that cause really that’s what happens in life.

River Phoenix gives the greatest performance of his sad and short career. He plays this character with such more depth than what he was given and there are just a countless number of scenes that make me so upset knowing that he had such great talent, and sadly that is all thrown away. Keanu Reeves probably gives one of his greatest performances of all-time too, and builds that beautiful chemistry he and Phoenix build together on film so beautifully.

Consensus: Though it may be very challenging for some, My Own Private Idaho is well-directed, superbly acted, and gives us a realistic and look into the mind, body, and soul of these two characters.

8.5/10=Matinee!!!

McHale’s Navy (1997)

Never have 105 minutes felt like 3 hours!

The Navy will never be the same after Captain McHale (Tom Arnold) and his ragtag band of bumbling misfits are called upon to defend the base of San Ysidro Island from an evil terrorist bent on world domination.

Honestly, there is nothing I can really write for this. I didn’t like it.

The regular TV classic show was funny, where as this was just a plain and simple really bad attempt at trying to be very funny.The differences between the show and this are just so obivous that I just didn’t really care what happened at all in this film.

The acting is not very good. Tom Arnold just puts these lines out and they seem so forced like he was almost bribed into doing this film. Tim Curry, and the rest of the supporting cast just doesn’t seem at all in touch with their comedic sides.

Basically this one of the worst spin-offs of any TV show ever, and really will just leave you bored all the way through.

0/10=BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

God why did I miss this when it was in theaters!!!

A Jewish cinema owner (Mélanie Laurent) in occupied Paris is forced to host a Nazi movie premiere, where a radical group of American Jewish soldiers called the Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), plans to roll out a score-settling scheme. The face-off is about to go down — that’s if Col. Hans Landa aka “The Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz) doesn’t get in the way.

First of all, Tarantino is really a genius. He combines the elements of thriller, drama, comedy, action, and a bit of spaghetti-western. And to be truly honest, they all work so well in this film.

The one thing I really loved about this film is that it just says no to real-life history, and adds in its own history, told by Quentin Tarantino. The way this was historically inaccurate was actually pretty inspiring, because I’m actually starting to get sick of the WWII holocaust Oscar-bait films that Hollywood puts out every year, and I feel like Tarantino is just basically putting up his middle finger to that whole machine.

I liked how Tarantino uses color in this movie, especially the color red, to paint his picture. This is not just a throwback to the War movies of old but it is updated style with an edge for the more sophisticated viewer. Tarantino takes some creative license with history to produce a complicated and very nice mix of unpredictable edge of your seat entertainment that keeps you guessing until he is ready to reveal the plot.

I really did like the script here and thought it was a lot more different and updated than regular Tarantino scripts, but is so overused. The overly constant talking of the film got a little out of hand for me by the 1 hour and 30 minute mark, and it made me actually feel bored and wish that they would just finally cut to the chase.

The characters are what really brings this film high up here with Tarantino’s best. You get a look at these larger than life characters, who do nothing but just kill and kill and kill Nazis, and thats all they want to do. They become the good guys right from the get-go and you see yourself cheering for them to win throughout the whole film. The only problem I had was that they weren’t in the film as much as you would expect. I would have liked to see them a lot more since you know it kind of is called Inglorious Basterds.

Brad Pitt is basically what brings the heart and comedy to this film. He brings out a lot of the funny parts between all the gore and tension, and as much of a character-shtick that he was playing, he was playing what Tarantino ultimately wanted him to be overall. But this film is not much of the Brad Pitt show as it is the Christoph Waltz show. How can this guy be so good at playing someone so evil?? He is so great and so amazing at playing this “jew hunter”, who we want dead but by the same token he sort of transcends into this guy we are sort of amused by.

I also liked how half of this film was sub-titled and for some a lot of reading will be involved. But for me I respect this and how he supported this idea, and didn’t just go with suddenly everyone being able to talk English, like I see in so many other film. Also, there were a lot of random little film references that at points kept me interested but then kept me a little left out. It was random to see a little blaxplotation reference, but it didn’t matter in the end cause I still had a great time with this film.

Consensus: One of Tarantino’s best work to date, Inglorious Basterds is entertaining, amazingly-well acted, and perfectly written. I just felt that some time could have been shed off from all that damn talking!

9/10=Full Priceeee!!!

Beavis and Butt-head Do America (1996)

Why I have decided to review this, I don’t even know.

After realizing that their beloved boob tube is gone, couch potatoes Beavis and Butt-head (both voiced by creator Mike Judge) set off on a cross-country expedition that takes them from Las Vegas to the nation’s capital. Along the way, they’re mistaken for hit men and get caught up in a weapons-smuggling conspiracy as a gaggle of mobsters and lawmen shadow the two morons.

So basically Do America, is an animated road movie, that shows these two in situations that you have never seen them before. I have already seen this movie like 20 times but that was when I was all young. Now that I’m older, I know a lot more of what the jokes are saying, and oh god did I laugh!!

A lot of people never understood Beavis and Butt-head even when it was on MTV. It was a brilliant satire of popular culture and the crudeness, insipidness, and stupidity of it. Beavis and Butt-head are the narcissistic anti-heroes; fourteen year old heavy metal heads who’s life is totally empty without television. The only thing they think about is television and “scoring.”

This is what I found out to be the funniest element of this whole movie. Yeah the jokes may be the same usual dirty jokes, but they are displayed in such a way that you can’t help but laugh. How these two take everything in a different way then it normally was, made me laugh a whole lot more.

I need to say that the satirical element in this film is what is very funny. Not just B&B, but other people like the government, police, and a lot of the politicians are viewed as stupid and sometimes ignorant, which made me laugh a whole lot more.

I just wish that this film had a lot more. It was only 1 hour and 20 minutes and when it was all over I felt like I just watched 3 episodes of B&B. The plot could have expanded into more places, but hey that’s just me.

Consensus: Do America is hilarious, satirical, and at the same time brainless. Though if it went on longer I think it would have been such a better movie.

8/10=Matinee!!!

The Devil’s Own (1997)

Finally, I get to see these two work together!!

After seeing British soldiers gun down his father as a child, Frankie McGuire (Brad Pitt) joins the Irish Republican Army, determined to avenge his father’s death, and sails to America to buy weapons from an underground arms dealer. Going by the alias of Rory Devaney, Frankie moves into the home of cop Tom O’Meara (Harrison Ford), who, when he learns of Rory’s agenda, must choose between his sympathy for a troubled man and his desire for justice.

The film is directed by Alan J. Pakula, and with his other films like The Pelican Brief and Presumed Innocent, you can pretty much tell he loves creating these type of political-violent thrillers. With this one though, I don’t think it was one of his strongest.

The beginning shows how Pitts father is gunned down in front of him. But what is never explained is why he was gunned down in the first place. So instead of further elaborating on this, the film takes a flash-forward to Pitt as an adult. This bothered me cause I never really understood why this happened at all.

But how could you make a movie about the violence in Northern Ireland, and never ever even bring up the words Catholic and Protestant, or even for that matter British? Honestly, if you are going to have a film about this subject then there must be some at least reasoning of what religion is which and why they are fighting.

The one thing that saves this film is its performances from its leaders. Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, both play two superb characters that at first you don’t really know or care about yet. But, by the end you start to really be able to relate to these characters and you start to like them as it goes along. Pitt, if you can get past his really funny Irish accent, actually has a scene or two where shows his abilities as an actor early in his career. They both have good chemistry from start to finish and that is what makes me like this film a lot more than the other ones.

The ending for this film is what is really bad though. I felt like with this ending they wrote it over 4,000 times, and just ended with this final play because they had nothing else better.

Consensus: The Devil’s Own has powerful performances from Pitt and Ford, but feels a lot more jumbled together, and isn’t too clear about certain parts of the story, if just leaving some out.

5/10=Rentall!!!!

The Informant! (2009)

Matt Damon putting on some big-ass pounds!

While gathering evidence against his employer, ADM in Decatur, Ill., to help the FBI build a price-fixing conspiracy case, wealthy, affable executive Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) begins to piece together a fantasy world of his own.

I was looking forward to really seeing this. I like a lot of Soderbergh films, but really what I felt going into this film wasn’t really met by the end of the film.

First of all, the film has got a a little good slice of humor. It has a sort of ironic tone with its jokes that aren’t very funny at first, but once you actually think about them, they are actually pretty funny jokes.

One thing that the film benefits the most from is its main protagonist. Damon is the exact opposite of the under-handed and sleek saboteur. Instead he is a bumbling, quirky, mid-western family man who is really bad at lying. I found that he was the funniest, as not much as Damon but as much as the way the character was put out to be, and how almost every lie he made up, just failed cause it was so obvious and dumb.

The little running narration that plays throughout the whole film from Damon at first is funny, but soon by the end it comes out of nowhere at points and just becomes a bit annoying.

The score switches by between secret spy theme songs and frantic circus music depending on how wacky the characters were acting. All this did for me, was remind me that the scenes were supposed to be funny, but I wasn’t laughing. I felt like Sodebergh just threw this music in to make this story more interesting and to add more of an element of humor towards its characters.

Matt Damon really does inhabit this guy Whitacre, and seems like this actual schlock of a guy. This does speak to show his abilities as an actor and how he can handle these films. The problem I had with the cast was that the supporters we’re people like Joel McHale, Scott Backula, hell even Biff from Back To The Future is here and they aren’t really doing anything funny here, considering that they are basically all stand-up comedians.

Consensus: Though it has a lazy direction from Soderbergh and a lot of bad mistakes, The Informant! is still satirically funny with a great performance from Damon, but it doesn’t quite keep your attention for long.

6.5/10=Rentall!!!

Requests????

Want to see a movie, on my site be reviewed??? Well here is your chance to finally have your chance to tell me and make it official.

You can request up to 3 movies, and just simply list them and e-mail me at doneill12@archmereacademy.com

I’m not making any promises but I can assure you one of our your movies if not all, will be reviewed.

Thanks Guys, and keep on reading!!!

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!!!