Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull review

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Starring Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, and Shia LaBeouf
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Rated PG-13 for action violence and scary images
Score: ****1/2

This is the moment I have been waiting for my entire life. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my all-time favorite film. Ever since I was a child playing with a homemade whip and cheap plastic fedora, making up my own Indiana Jones adventures with friends, I have longed for a new film. Sadly, I almost feel that this film came 5 years too late. My childhood is gone, after all, but perhaps the cynic and critic in me can take a backseat and let the inner child shine through.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull sees famed archaeologist (played by none other than Harrison Ford) being captured by the Russians in 1957. The Commies and their feisty Captain Spalko (Cate Blanchett) force him to help them track down an ancient crystal skull, which may contain an unforeseen amount of power. Along the way Indy meets up with Mutt (Shia LeBouf), who becomes Indy’s new partner in adventure.

The movie is beautiful, a fantastic display of Spielberg’s mastery of special effects. It is especially apparent in the major action piece of the film, where Indy and his posse fight the Commies in a car chase through the jungle. The scene is very reminiscent of both the car chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the tank fight in The Last Crusade. But it isn’t derivative. It has plenty of original material.

That leads me to the story. The screenplay had been re-written so many times, with writers from all over the place, including Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont, giving it a go at one point. The guy that finally got the job, David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Carlito’s Way, Stir of Echoes, Spider-Man) did a smash-up job with the material, making any Indy fan proud. I really wish I could give away some finer plot details, but I just can’t for sheer respect for all the Indiana Jones fans out there.

The cast works very well together. There is no doubt that these are good characters. The villains may be a little stereotypical, but since when have they NOT been in an Indiana Jones film? Cate Blanchett and Shia LeBouf are very welcome in this picture, and I’m shocked about the performance of the latter. LeBouf just isn’t my kind of actor. After his performances in Holes, I Robot, and Transformers, I wasn’t sold on his potential as an actual actor. But he did very well in this movie. He and Ford had great on-screen chemistry.

Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. He is back with the same wit, the same, style, the same outfit, but in a different setting this time. He’s in his late 50s, and like he says in the opening lines of the film his line of work is “not as easy as it used to be.” The film makes a few lighthearted jabs at Indy’s age, but most of the time it just lets Indy do his thing. Believe it or not, Ford doesn’t look that old in the movie, at least not when he’s wearing his hat. It doesn’t detract from the movie at all.

What does, unfortunately, somewhat detract from the film, is the new setting. Most Indy fans are used to the 1930s or 1940s, with Nazis the focus. Obviously they couldn’t do that considering the age factor, but it’s somewhat unfamiliar territory. It isn’t pulled off bad, per se. In fact, Spielberg did a great job with the ‘50s theme. I’m just not used to it. It’s different. It kinda took me out of it a little bit.

As well as taking place in a new era, the film was made in a new eras- the era of $300 million CGI blockbusters. This film uses CGI to its fullest potential, and the outcome is mesmerizing. But once again, I’m used to practical effects and real location sets. This film almost loses that realism the first three films had. Maybe it’s just me being nostalgic again.

It’s no spoiler that Karen Allen is in this movie as Marion Ravenwood, the love interest from Raiders of the Lost Ark. I, for one, loved the character in that film, but here she just seems like fanservice. One could make an argument that the entire film is fanservice, but I just felt she needed to be more prominent at times.

I saw this at the midnight showing premier in my hometown. The place was literally packed with fans, many of them sporting fedoras and at least three wearing the full Indiana Jones wardrobe. And that is what makes Indiana Jones what it is- nostalgia. Fanboyism, if you will indulge me for a moment. The feeling I got when watching the movie with so many likeminded individuals who have been waiting for this movie for years- magical. You just can’t match it. To me, this isn’t just a big summer blockbuster. This is a life-fulfilling moment, and I’m not embellishing anything. Sure, it has a couple small flaws. But they are just that- small. This film was a joy to watch. Part of me has been fulfilled inside. I would say it’s better than Temple of Doom, and very, very close to being as good as The Last Crusade, but it doesn’t reach the stature of Raiders

Teeth review

Teeth
Starring Jess Weixler, John Hensley, Josh Pais
Directed by Mitchell Lichtenstein
Rated R (contains strong gory violence and disturbing sexual material, some language and drug use)
Score: ***1/2

Teeth is a new dark comedy/horror film that was in independent release a few months ago, and has now reached DVD.

This film contains mostly unknown actors and an unknown director. That doesn't get in the way of the film's odd charm.

We see Dawn, a young high schooler intent on saving her virginity until after marriage. She is pai9nfulyl oblivious, not only to her body, but alos to the people around her. But, when she meets a boy she likes, she finds it hard to resist her urges. Unfortunately, she also has a strange mutation know as Vagina Dentata- the toothed vagina.

Does that sound wierd to you? Well, it IS. But that is a major plus for this type of indie horror film. In fact, it's probably what saves this film from being completely average.

The film is entertaining, but not in the traditional sense. It's very interesting. The vagina dnetata myth has been around for a long time, but this is the first film I've seen or heard about that took the legend and put it into modern context. The movie has a lot of classic imagery and almost a mythical quality about it.

The character interactions and most of the dialog is good, but the acting could have been better, especially from lead actress Jess Weixler. She's a blossoming talent, that's for sure, but she stil needs some work.

The film's message is at best ambiguous. Is it a critique on religion? Is it about the opression of women in today's society? The mannerisms and the way the beliefs she holds to are presented paint a possibly offensive picture of the Christian religion, as such stalwarts as evolution vs. creation, women's place in the home, etc are brought up. But thankfully, the film doesn't really focus on it. In fact, God is barely, if not at all, mentioned in the film. It's more a critique on how society uses religion and other aspects to put boundaries on women.

I don't think it would be out of place to call this a feminist piece of art.

It's very gross at times. Horror officianados will be pleased, I guarantee it.

The negatives of this film...well, it's lacking in any real sense of enjoyment. Sure, it's got a few chuckles, and it's very interesting to watch, but it's very back and forth. It almost relies on the "indie" charm and the sheer uniqueness of the story to compensate for lack of structure and poor character development. Well, at leats poor development of the side characters.

The film is very short, too. It does come full circle, but the film just feels to short at 88 minutes.

Overall it's a solid rental and definitely a strong debut, but it isn't an amazing piece of work.

Iron Man review

Iron Man
Starring Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrance Howard, and Jeff Bridges
Directed by Jon Favreau
Rated PG-13 (contains lots of sci-fi action/violence, a brief suggestive scene, alcohol use, and some disturbing images)
Score: *****

The summer movie season is officially here, and it starts off with a huge, successful bang. Successful to the tune of a $104 million opening weekend box office gross. And Iron Man is one movie that fully deserves it.

Tony Stark is a billionaire weapons designer/manufacturer and CEO of Stark Industries. His brilliant mind is behind some of the most successful technological breakthroughs in recent history, and he is changing the face of modern warfare. Unfortunately, during a demonstration is Afghanistan, he is kidnapped by terrorists and forced to build a missle for them. He realises that his weapons manufacturing is doing more harm than good and vows to protect the people he once put in danger.

This makes for a wonderfully different superhero film. No teenage angst. No murdered family to avenge. No freak acdident. Little opression from outside forces. Just a man who sees the consequences of his actions and feels in his heart what the correct course of action is. It's a breath of fresh air in the nearly stale crop of comic book movies.

The film has some violent moments, but it is never "dark" in the Sin City, Hellboy, Punisher, or Batman Begins type of feel. It's much more lighthearted, but it isn't cheesy or cutesy like Fantastic Four or Spider Man. The closest superhero movie I can compare this to is The Incredibles, and the two films may be the best superhero movies ever made. This movie is THAT good.

The dialogue and characters drive this movie, believe it or not. And the movie is over two hours long. But it is never boring. It movies lightening quick, but it doesn't rush it. The pace is perfect. The interactions between the main characters are splendid. The dialogue is almost always hilarious.

A point has to be made about the amazing casting choice of Robert Downey, Jr. He IS Tony Stark/ Iron Man. This performance will go on to be one of his defining performances. His personality matches so well with the personality of Stark.

The film knows how to please the fans, too. This is a rare breed of superhero movie. It has excellent action scenes surprisingly lacking in shaky cam. It has great performances, a fabulous story. I mean, there is nothing wrong with this film unless you want to get nitpicky. It has set the bar extremely high for the rest of the summer movie seano. Speed Racer, Narnia, Indiana Jones, Hulk, Hellboy, Batman- you all have a lot to live up to. Iron Man may end up being the best summer movie, and one of the best movies period, of 2008.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guanatanamo Bay review

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

Starring: Jon Cho, Kal Penn, Niel Patrick Harris, and Rob Corddry
Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
Rated R (contains strong crude and sexual humor, copious nudity, pervasive language, obviously a lot of drug and alcohol use, and one shockingly violent scene)
Score: ****

So, we have our first big movie of the summer (unoficially). It's a sequel (of course). It's a sequel to a good movie (shockingly).

This movie, beleive it or not, is also quite good.

Harold and Kumar, as many of you probably remember, are potheads who ramble aimlessly while trying to accomplish some outlandish task. In the first film ,it was getting to White Castle to eat 30 burgers and four large orders of fries each. In this movie, the two lovable losers try to travle to Amsterdam, but are mustaken for terrorists. They end up in Gitmo.

Thus is the hilarious premise the movie sets up so well. These characters make the movie what it is. They drive the story, their reactions make us laigh, and their dialogue actually gives us insight into who they are. This is the key to the success of this movie.

The jokes are mostly right on the money. They focus on outlandish situations and politically incorrect idealogies. The movie takes stabs and jokes that many other movies would be afraid to, outside of say, Team America or South park.

The film's only one and obvious problem is that many of the jokes are retreads from the original film, which was a refreshingly original movie. I was hoping for the same here, and I did get some hilarious and oddly erotic sequences, but it seemed too focused on connecting everything back to the first film. On at least one occasion, it worked perfectly. On others, it just interrupts the flow of the film.

Of course, I have to say something about Neil Patrick Harris. He does such a fantastic job of parodying himself. if this movie was lacking NPH, I would have hated it. Well, not really, but he moves the film up a notch.

Overall, a worthy entry into a growing franchise. I hope to see more of Roldy and Kumar soon.

Switching to the 5 star system

I've decided that the system for rating movies that I use is just too damn complicated, so I'm switching to the 5 star system. I'll probably periodically go back and re-edit all my old posts, but for now I'm just gonna leave it at this:

*****- Amazing
****1/2- Great
****- Very Good
***1/2- Good
***- Serviceable
**1/2- Average
**- Mediocre/Below Average
*1/2- Bad
*- Very Bad
1/2- Terrible
No stars- Ghastly

Superhero Movie review

Superhero Movie
Rated PG-13(contains crude humor, language, and comic violence)
Directed by Craig Mazin
Starring Drake Bell, Sarah Paxton, Christopher McDonald, and Leslie Nielson
Score: ***1/2

Spoof movies almost always suck nowadays. We really haven't had a good Airplane style spoof since the last Naked Gun and Hot Shots sequels.

Instead, we get fucking Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg, the assholes who brought you the worst movie of 2007 in Epic Movie, and probably the worst movie of 2008 in Meet the Spartans.

Well, then Superhero Movie came out. It had the same "Scary Movie" style poster, the Scary Movie alum(Regina Hall, Leslie Nielson, Simon Rex, etc...) , and one of the Scary Movie writers. Fortunately, this writer comes from the School of Zucker Comedy.

The movie is a straight parody of Spider-Man 1 and 2 for the most part. It follows the action and plot of those films, but takes every opportunity to make actual jokes rather than just put "hey, remember this part in that one movie?" lines. It actually made me laugh. It made me laugh out loud about four or five times. It made me chuckle or smile through 95% of the rest of the movie. It actually doesn't suck.

There is a difference between the Friedberg/Seltzer bullshit and Scary Movie 3, 4, and Superhero Movie. They are two totally different styles of comedy. One uses the exact plot, the exact same character names, and a whole bunch of lookalike actors while stringing together 90,000 pop culture references and 20 minute dance sequences.

Superhero Movie has one or two references to Youtube, and a brief reference to Perez Hilton. That is all the pop culture spoof you get. There is a dance sequence, but it is only about 15 seconds rather than 15 minutes. The jokes are the same kind of nonsensical but completely hilarious jokes you get in Airplane and Top Secret.

There is one bad scene, however, that almost reaches the Friedberg/Seltzer levels- the scene in the X-Men Academy. In fact, the references to X-Men and Fantastic Four should have been left out completely to make the film a straight Spider Man parody. They should have kept the film's original name, "Superhero!". It is obvious that this is a totally different kind of movie than Meet the Spartans.

It is a shame that the film has a 3.7/10 on IMDb. People are just voting badly because it looks like it would suck and they went into the movie hoping it would suck. Well, it doesn't suck.

Diary of the Dead review

Diary of the Dead
Directed by: George A. Romero
Rated: R (contains strong violence/gore and pervasive language)
Starring: Lots of no-names
Score: ***


George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead is the newest installment in Romero's highly influential Dead series. This film is the first film that is actually a sequel- picking up where the original Night of the Living Dead

This installment takes two very different approaches to filmmaking that Romero's hasn't done before- the handheld/first-person camera perspective, and completely beating you over the head with his message. Usually Romero opts for a more subtle approach to his social commentary, but here it's just so obvious and blatant.

The film follows a bunch of Pittsburgh college students as they are making a horror film in the woods with their professor. Suddenly, a news broadcast appears telling them that the dead have begun to rise. At first our heroes don't believe it, but soon they realize, through unfortunate encounters of their own, that the dead are trying to kill and eat them.

And one of the students, the director of the film, decides to stay in "Jackass Overly-Controlling Film Director" mode for the entirety of the film in order to make what they call "a diary of the events", which he promptly uploads part of to Youtube. It gets 74,000 hits in 8 minutes, since the news media is framing it all wrong and the only real footage is done by amateurs. He has to get the truth out there, in order to maybe "save somebodies' lives." See, the amazingly NOT subtle thing is, in at least 3 scenes, we find out he doesn't give jack sh!t about anybody.

The entire film is so pushy with it's message of the evils of the electronic age and the over-reliance on the media as a source of fact. It's off-putting. And it's inexcusable.

Romero always has social commentary in his films, whether it be racism, consumerism, the class struggle, whatever. But he's able to frame it so well without shoving down are throats like we're 5 dollar whores. Not here.

Having said that, I will certainly say that the film's message is a good one. The characters(with the exception of Mr. Gun-Ho Documentary Maker) are all very well fleshed out. the pain and guilt of losing family members, dealing with an impossible situation, and having to kill somebody(even if they're already dead) are all realized to their full potential.

The film has some real poignant moments between characters and the dialog, for the most part, is very good(albeit pretty theatrical at times).

The "action" of the film is few and far between. Compared to the rest of his films, Day of the Dead especially, this movie is severely lacking in the gore department. We have a few good scares and a couple awesome kill scenes, but the film makes you feel bad for wanting to see the violence. Any time there is any amount of blood or gore, the characters are there to give you a speech about how, when you're sitting behind a camera or watching through a screen, you become immune to death and destruction. It all becomes a spectator sport.

It made me feel bad about myself, because if I was in their situation, I'm afraid that I would become a senseless killing machine willing to do anything to stay alive, with no regard or thought put to how or why my friends and family became the way they are. I count this as a very strong point of the film. It was able to achieve it's desired effect, but not without pissing me off numerous times.

At times the film is powerful and relevant, but a lot of the time the characters just stand and yell personal attacks at the director of the "documentary". Romero could have made this film amazing. It could have been a socially relevant film with very important undertones. Instead it sometimes comes off like a charismatic Pentecostal preacher yelling at the top of his lungs on Sunday morning.

Cloverfield pulled it off much better.

Doomsday Review

Doomsday
Dir. Neil Marshall
Starring Rhona Mitra, Bob Hoskins, Malcolm McDowell
Rated R(strong bloody violence, language, and some sexuality/nudity)
Score: ****

Do you like campy 70/80s action films like The Warriors, Escape from New York, the Mad Max series, and the original Terminator? Do you like the films of George Romero and John Carpenter? If you answered yes to both of these, then for the love of God watch Doomsday.

Doomsday is from director Neil Marshall, who brought us one of the most truly terrifying movies of the past few years in The Descent. I can't necessarily say this film is a step forward for him, but I'm sure it was really fun to make.

We follow Eden(Rhona Mitra), who as a young girl was rescued from Scotland after the deadly Reaper virus broke out. 30 years later, and now a police officer, she and her group of renegade cops must infiltrate the walled-off country to find the mysterious Kane(Malcolm McDowell), who supposedly has a cure, after the virus breaks out in England. Little does she know that inside the country is a civilization of cannibalistic punks waiting to claim some prey.

The movie plays out like 28 Days Later for the first 30 minutes, then turns Mad Max for about 30 more minutes, then turns midievel for a bit after the group finds Kane's fortress. This film should not be taken seriously at all. It has an irreverent charm about, and often goes completely over the top with its blood and gore content.

Not that I have a problem with that. In fact, I applaud it. This is exactly the kind of sci-fi/action/horror hybrid I expected it to be. We don't need a unique plot, just a serviceable one. We don't need supreme depth of characters or high-quality acting. In fact, all this movie needs is exactly what it has- blood, gore, explosions, car chases, hilariously over-the-top villains, and a kick-ass heroine who spits out constant one-liners.

This film is high on entertainment but low on logic. In fact, a 12-year-old could probably spot three or more plot holes. And it has a bunch of cliches(such as the evil goverment leader with no motivation whatsoever other than "power").

However, that is expected in a film like this. It's obviously referencial to all the movies I've listed, and it definitely has a John Carpenter feel about it. Marshall is the horror director of this generation. He's one ofr the few directors out there that can save horror from the torture porn/Japanese remake stage we're currently in. Horror is still alive, thank God! And I thank Marshall for this film. It's one great ride.

Into the Wild review

Into the Wild
Directed by Sean Penn
Starring Emile Hirsh, Hal Holbrook, Marsha Gay Harden, and William Hurt
Rated R (contains language, adult situations, substance use, and some nudity/sexuality)
Score: **1/2

I'm so disappointed. I was looking forward to this movie so much, just like I was
looking forward to Lust Caution.

But it had to go and be mediocre and disappoint me, also like Lust Caution.

The film follows Chris McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp, a 21-year-old college grad who is fed up with the status quo and leaves everything to be a drifter. His ultimate goal is to make it to Alaska, where he plans to live off the land for a while.

This film is based off a book, which is based on a true story. Actually, it's a very close retelling of the story. From what I understand, this is a very faithful adaptation.

Here's the central problem- Chris is the most immature, naive, pig-headed, anal, smart-assed, and downright baby-ish character I've ever seen. It may have been the filmmaker's intentions, but what this does is draw us out of the experience. You can't have a good movie if you don't sympathize with the characters.

I was expecting this movie to have a great mesage about discovering yourself in the world. Unfortunately, I got a really selfish brat who thinks destroying all of his life and leaving his family is a splendid idea. The whole film up until the last 30 minutes or so paints him as this justified hero because, well, his parents faught a lot and "nobody understands him." Bullshit. Anybody with a brain knows that's ridiculous.

There isn't a message in the film up until the aformentioned last 30 minutes. It just wanders like Chris does. Then, we get to the actual meat, which is actually quite good. I'm not in the business of spoilers, but I'll say that I thought for a movie with such a stupid central character, it wrapped up nicely.

The cinematography is fantastic, and Hal Holbrook is amazing in his supporting role. In fact, all the supporting roles were better than Emile Hirsch's role as Chris. But that's because he had to play a prick.

All in all, you're supposed to "understand" Chris, but not necessarily agree with him. I did niether. It ruined the movie for me. It's obviously a well made movie, and a lot of people seem to enjoy it. I probably won't ever see it again.

Justice League: The New Frontier review

Last year it was announced that there would be a series of direct-to-DVD animated films for DC comics characters, all produced by Bruce Timm. The first was the rather undewhelming Superman Doomsday. The second is Justice League: The New Frontier, which is based off of the popular Silver Age-inspired graphic novel series DC: The New Frontier. The film features the voice talents of Kyle Machlaclin, Kyra Sedgewick, Lucy Lawless, and Jemery Sisto among others.

This film centers around superheroes during the cold war. The Korean War had just ended, McCarthyism is alive and strong, and superheroes are being increasingly looked down upon as the government inteferes with everyday lives. Along with this, an evil alien presence threatens to destroy all of humanity. It serves as an excellent backdrop for a film.

The film focuses around Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern most of the time, as they are the "new guys" being introduced. Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, Flash, and King Faraday also have pretty decent roles in the film.

To appreciate this film, you have to be a comic book fan. That is pretty much a given. There is a lot going on in this film, and it takes an attentive eye to catch it all, but there is a lot of fanservice here if you know what I mean.

The animation is pretty much the same as we all remember from the previous Timm animations, but here the characters are redesigned to fit the '50s feel. In short, it's a joy to behold.

With the plot and the animation so great, I was a little disappointed at how the plot unfolds. The film is 72 minutes long, and we don't see Green Lantern in costume until about 64 minutes in. That is inexcusable. I know they were setting it up, but setup is for films that have sequels, and this movie won't have one. The filmmakers were walking a fine line between explaning too much and explaning too little. We don't see much of the characters' inner selves as plot development is stressed much mire than character development, and that's a shame. They could have added 20 minutes to this movie easily and it wouldn't have made it overlong.

The action is lacking, and just like Superman Doomsday, the first hour of development feels like it went to waste when a series of deus ex machinas force all the heroes into one big mutual earth-saving party. It's a bit cliche. But really, the message of the film is so wonderfully stated that even half-assed excecution doesn't totally destroy it.

A few characters are pretty much pointless. Ray Palmer appears in non-Atom form to give us a deus ex machina("hey, I have this shrinking gizmo that I magically have to help us all!"); Aquaman shows up at the end for another deus ex machina; and Robin, Green Arrow, and the Blackhawks are just...there. We even get references to other heroes that don't even play a part in the film. It's almost an endless list of heroes they were trying to cram into a short 70 minutes. But thankfully the film sits back and focuses the story on the main characters.

Overall, it has a strong plot, a strong message, and some totally awesome characters with some strong action in the latter moments. Plot excecution problems, lack of action through the first hour, and inaccessibility to many people force me not to give this a great rating, but I highly recommend it for comic geeks like myself who want to feel like a kid.

82/100

2008 Summer Preview

Ah, the summer movie season. Last year we had the year of the "threequel" with Rush Hour, Bourne, Pirates, Shrek, and Spider-Man all getting big adaptations. This year is less glamorous, but looks to be just as big. Here's a rundown of the big movies and how much I think they'll make.

Iron Man(May 2)- 225 million
Speed Racer(May 9)- 75 million
Prince Caspian(May 16)- 280 million
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull(May 23)- 330 million
Sex and the City(May 30)- 180 million
You Don't Mess With the Zohan(June 6) - 115 million
Kung Fu Panda(June 6)- 190 million
The Incredible Hulk(June 13)- 150 million
The Happening(June 13)- 60 million
Get Smart(June 20)- 175 million
The Love Guru(June 20)- 70 million
Wall-E(June 27)- 250 million
Wanted(June 27)- 210 million
Hancock(July 4)- 300 million
Hellboy II(July 11)- 140 million
The Dark Night(July 18)- 350 million

I thikn Hancock will be the surprise this summer. It's the only movie July 4th weekend, and it has Will Smith. That guarantees you 200 million right there. Obviously Wall-E, Dark Night, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, and Narnia will all be huge. I think The Love Guru, The Happening, and Speed Racer will all flop. X Files 2, Mummy 3, Bond 22, and Harry Potter 6 all have later summer or fall release dates, but they'll all be pretty big, especially Bond and Potter.

Semi-Pro review

Semi-Pro

It's Will Ferrell. It's a sports movie spoof.

I can't say much of anything about this movie other than it is Will Ferrell's worst movie of this kind. Compared to Talladega Nights or Anchorman, this movie sucks. It's comedic timing is off and it's much more cruel and unusual than the previous films of this ilk.

There are a few good laughs, though. The two announcers are absolutely hilarious. There's a particular scene that absolutely made me laugh my guts out. About half of the jokes work, and when they do they work extremely well.

Unfortunately, during the last 30 minutes of this 90 minute movie, it turns from a comedy to a full-blown underdog sports movie. I really hate uneven movies. It would have been better if it had consistently sucked, because then I'd be sure it wasn't worth the ticket stub. But now I'm not sure if it was worth it.

It's a throw-away film. It just doesn't work all too often. It could have been hilarious, but it just suffices as mildly amusing most of the time with three or so really good segments.

On the plus side, though, it had one of the best lines ever put to screen: "If you see a possum running around, try and kill it. It's not a pet."

It's better than Lust Caution at least.

66/100

Lust, Caution Review

Ang Lee has quickly become one of the most acclaimed directors in the world. With Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain, he garnered many awards including the Best Director award at the 78th Academy Awards.

His newest film, Lust, Caution, is set in 1940s Hong Kong during the Japanese occupation of World War II. A young girl(Tang Wei) and her classmates decide to set up their own private resistance and begin to train her to seduce a top Japanese recruiter named Yee in order to lure him into the public so he can be killed.

That sounds like a great plot, right?

Well, too bad it wad COMPLETELY STOLEN. Here is a plot synopsis of Paul Verhoeven's Black Book, a movie I listed in my Top 10 Movies You May Have Missed:

After her family is murdered in a Nazi raid, a young Jewish woman joins the Dutch resistance, disguises herself, trains herself to seduce a top Gestapo official in order to find out the reason behind her family's excecution.

I really have a problem with this. Both movies feature the main character falling in love with the official. Both movies also have them paired up with a member in the resistence for whom they also share feelings. Both movies feature copius nudity. Both movies have tragic deaths and shocking revelations.

The difference is that Lust Caution is boring as a snail, while Black Book is lush, vibrant, and actually sexy. Lust Caution is needlessly loooooooong. The character's relationships are shallow and unfeeling. The sex scenes do nothing that porn wouldn't, so the "romance" is completely unbelievable. I didn't understand the motivations behind Wei's charcter other than she wants to "fit in". We don't have a reason as to why she fell in love(or lust) with Mr. Yee.

But I think it has to do with the fact that this movie is about the dangers of lust, while Black Book is more of a revenge driven film.

Both movies have great acting and great cinematography, but Black Book has everything regarding the characters and the fluidity of the plot that Lust Caution never achieves. It is so much more sensual and sexy, something Verhoeven has always been able to do. Lee's films are just too self-insistent for their own good.

If you see Lust, Caution, see Black Book first please. Maybe you'll like the more impersonal, dramatic touch that Lee's film has opposed to the gritty and slightly cheesy feel that Verhoeven employs.

62/100

Death at a Funeral review

I have a soft spot for British humor, and a fondness for black humor as well. Frank Oz's Death at a Funeral does both very, very well.

The film follows a bunch of family and friends(Matthew McFayden, Rupert Graves, and Alan Tudyk, among others) of a recently deceased man. After a mishap involving hallucinagenic drugs, the funeral is thrown into chaos. To make matters worse, a mysterious midget(Peter Dinklage) shows up with a devastating family secret.

From the first scene of the movie, you know the film has great timing, hilarious dialogue, and absolutely ridiculous situations. Ohhh, it's so hard not to give anything away!

I'll just say that this film has a killer(pardon the pun) sense of humor. It's bleak yet not morbid. It's dry, but not boring. It's timing is the real reason this movie works. On at LEAST three occasions an absurd situation is immediately followed up by a perfectly timed sight gag or observation or coincidence that just hilights the comedy perfectly.

The acting, the cinematography, and the music are all pretty much secondary to the plot and script, but it's all serviceable to good.

The film is pretty short, only 91 minutes, but it seems to drag a little bit during the first twenty minutes and the last ten minutes. But the hour in between, boy is it a riot.

It isn't for everybody, though. Many a person have told me that British humor is "stupid," and it really is an aquired taste. But if you love Monty python or the like type of dry situational comedy, Death at a Funeral is definitely for you.

86/100

Persepolis review

Persepolis is a French animated film that was nominated for the 2008 Best Animated Picture Academy Award. The film somehow made it to limited release in the US and even made it to my local theater despite not really having an audience here.

The film tells the story of a nine-year-old girl in Tehran, Iran circa the Iranian Revolution. It follows the war and her relationships as she comes of age and learns the difficult lessons of life.

This movie is absolutley, stunningly beautiful. The animation is so fluent yet so subtle. The characters just spring to life. All of the backgrounds and scenery are like paintings. It's rare I can say that, but it's true. It is just breathtaking.

The plot of this film is what shocks me. It is about the Iranian Revolution and how it affects a particular family. The message it portrays is one that can misconstrued as anti-American, anti-Capitalist, and pro-communist. But that's not the message here. The message here is that every person has the capacity to do harm, but it is our responsibility what we do with our life.

It portrays a side of life Americans have never had to face. It shows the real problems with Capitalism, and don't say there isn't any, because that's just naive. Every government is trying to find the balance between equality and freedom. You can't have all of both. This film is so important in that regard.

The characters and the dialogue is amazing as well. it manages to show real morality and life lessons along this child's journey, and the film is violent and depressing at times, but it also knows how to make you laugh at just the right time. It has all shades of emotion packed into a portrait of sizable beauty. Truly amazing!

Unfortunaetly, this movie is hard on the mind and is not very accessible. I found it quite the achievment, but I can certainly see where someone else wouldn't. Overall, I give it a

94/100

Be Kind Rewind review

Be Kind Rewind is Micehl Gondry's fourth movie in five years(after directing hits like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Dave Chapelle's Block Party), and the director has developed a following for his wide use of "whimsy." That word right there confuses me, and I'll get into that in a second.

The movie revolves around three people in a VHS store that happens to be the birthplace of a famous(or so the owner of the store contends) jazz musition "Fats" McGee or some ther stereotypical jazz name. One of the guys, the out-of-work conspiracy theorist Jerry(Jack Black) gets magnatized in a freak powerplant accident, and proceeds to erase all the tapes. The store is condemned and about to be demolished, so the mild mannered clerk Mike(Mos Def) must re-make all the tapes AND collect enough money so the building will survive.

Now, back to "whimsy". That's most most people are calling the humor in this movie. I call it completely out of place and useless wierdness. A lot of made-up words, completely nonsensical situations, and unbeleivably random acts litter this movie that I can only call "quaint," and that isn't a good thing. Let me give some examples:

The townspeople actually enjoy the fake 20-minute tapes.

Jerry and Mike grab some random girl who, for some reason, agrees to join them and asks virtually no questions.

Words like "Sweded"(what they call their process of movie-making) are invented with rationale like "Like Sweden, because it's such a big process it has to be named after a country."

The scene where Jerry gets magnetized is completely absurd. The way he gets un-magnetized is even more absurd. Then, with about 30 minutes left, the film goes way out on left field and pulls a 180. All of a sudden they're sued for copyright infringement(in a "whimsical" manner, of course) and...well, I guess I can't spoil it for you.

None of this feels in place. It's lacking in any real humor. The only times I laughed was at the sheer unbeleivability. For a film to go out of it's way to attempt a real-life setting and create a useful message, it goes even farther out of the way to make sure you say, "Wait, why are they saying/doing this again? It makes no sense whatsoever!" I thought, "Man, this would be great if this was a dream, but it isn't."

All in all, though, the characters were colorful enough and the plot was a great idea. It did bring me back to a time when I would rent cheapo VHS tapes. Those were the good 'ole times. Too bad this movie didn't do anything other than a few "cute" or "whimsical" moments and initiate some nastalgia. A great idea that never comes to full fruition.

It's horribly disjointed, but ay least it didn't stoop to lows like most comedies do nowadays. It tried something new, but didn't make it.

54/100

No Country, Blood, and Bourne Win Big at Oscars

This year's 80th Annual Academy Award ceremony went off with a bang after a nearly four month writers strike ended a few weeks ago. Here's a quick rundown of the year's big winners:

No Country for Old Men: Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, Best Picture.

There Will Be Blood: Best Cinematography, Best Actor

The Bourne Ultimatum: Best Sound Editing, Best Sound, Best Film Editing

La Vie en Rose: Best Makeup, Best Actress

Juno: Best Original Screenplay

Michael Clayton: Best Supporting Actress

Ratatouille: Best Animated Feature

Atonement: Best Original Score

Once: Best Original Song

Sweeney Todd: Best Art Direction

Elizabeth The Golden Age: Best Costume Design

The Golden Compass: Best Visual Effects

Only four films received multiple awards, and the big winner- No Country for Old Men- only received four of the eight it was nominated for. The Bourne Ultimatum won all three awards it was nominated for. La Vie En Rose was surprisingly strong, winning makeup and actress. I was personally disappointed that There Will Be Blood only won two of a possible eight awards. I was pissed when The Golden effing Compass won Visual Effects(because we all know that Transformers had by far the best visual effects put to the screen to date). I was extremely happy when Day-Lewis won for Acting and Once won Best Original Song. I was disappointed that Ratatouille only won one of the five awards it was nominated for. Overall, a pretty good night. It was funny, exciting, and overall had that classic vibe to it that's been missing recently. Great awards night.

Vantage Point review

Bittersweet.

That's the best word to describe Vantage Point, the new thriller directed by Pete Travis.

The film is shot with a Rashomon/Reservoir Dogs-style multiple viewpoint perspective. The plot revolves around an assasination of the U.S. president by terrorists at a world peace conference. Two secret service agents(Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox), a news crew(headed by Sigourney Weaver), the terrorists, a local police officer, the president(William Hurt), and a tourist(Forest Whitaker) all have their perspectives shown as the labyrinthine plot unveils itself.

The way the film is shot pretty much guarantees a bittersweet experience. The basic plot unfolds by one perspective. When that perspective is done, the movie literally rewinds(select scenes, not the whole movie) and starts over at the beginning from another viewpoint. It even flashes 12 o'clock so you know what time it is. The problem is, this happens four times. By the third, it's funny; by the fourth, tedious.

It is entertaining, though. And that is the positive. It is very thrilling. It isn't boring, and it accomplishes its job very very well. You are actually involved with how the plot is going to unfold. The twists, for the most part, are very good. There is a very good car chase near the end of the film.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is meh. The acting is serviceable, the score decent, the characters pretty much stock and cliche. The plot devices are occasionally manipulative, and overall it's a very shallow, superficial experience.

There is one particular twist that is totally ruined by the trailer, and the ending is completely and totally unbelievable.

It's a good rental, but I wouldn't see it in the theater unless you are a die hard political thriller fan. It really had a lot of potential, but a keen eye can spot the cliche and shallowness in this otherwise engaging movie.

69/100

In the Valley of Elah Review

Director Paul Haggis had himself during the 78th Academy Awards. His film Crash won Best Picture over Steven Spielberg's Munich and Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain. This year, his film In the Valley of Elah is nominated for one award- Best Actor for Tommy Lee Jones. Could this independent film come away with an upset as well?

The film follows a father(Jones) and a police detective(Charlize Theron) as they hunt for his awol son who just returned from Iraq. Things turn out to be much more sinister than first seems.

Once again, I am blown away by a film's ensemble cast and chemistry. Jones is terriffic here and maybe my second favorite lead performance this year aside from Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood and Casey Affleck in Gone Baby Gone. Theron give a good supporting performance, as does Susan Sarandon in the role of Jones' character's wife.

So, why didn't this movie get a wide release? Well, it is a very touchy movie that explores some dark themes that really reflect America's condition right now. The themes regard fear and heroism. The film's title comes straight from the Bible: The Valley of Elah is where David fights Goliath. There is an absolutely hypnotic scene where Jones tells a little boy the story of David and Goliath to help him overcome his fear of the dark. Our hero must face his own fears as he follows the tracks in what becomes a very god mystery.

The film's premise looks like setup for an anti-war movie, but do not fret. It is FAR from an anti-war movie. Sure, it shows the gigantic mess that our troops are in as well as the condition of America. However, it paints a wonderful picture of true heroism. Morality is still alive in cinema. The classic hero still exists. It's a breath of fresh air in a year rife with anti-heroes and corruptible protagonists. It made me feel like I could go out and change the world for good. The film is full of such powerful and moving images.

Negatives...well, the film, like most, has a couple "coincidences"(codename for plot devices) that move the story along, but probably would never happen in the real world or during a real investigative process. But how can i fault a film on this? It's almost impossible to write a film with zero plot devices or mcguffins or deus ex machinas. This film uses them well, and Paul Haggis shows his mastership at his craft. Somehow, I can't help feel a little bit manipulated, though.

I was thoroughly engrossed and mesmerized by this movie. It's the perfect length- long enough to feel fully fleshed out but not so long that it feels tedious. I didn't want it to end.

91/100

Right at your Door review

Right at your Door is an independent thriller film in wich "dirty" bombs, or chemical weaponry, is detonated in downtown Hollywood, causing havoc and much pain.

I have extremely mixed feelings about this film. On the one hand, it's extremely realistic and it hits home in this post-911 world. On the other hand, it's inept and unfocused in the way the story is told.

We have a young married couple who are separated one morning due to a massive bombing of L.A. The husband Brad(Rory Cochraine) is stuck in his house with the radio by his side. His wife Lexi(Mary McCormick) is stuck outside in the toxic cloud.

The film is frightening for the first half of the 96 minute runtime. It really gets down deep and makes you paranoid. What if this could really happen? It CAN really happen...

The acting is good, but the script leaves something to be desired on occasion.

Unfortunately, the film slows to an insanely repetitive lull during the last 40 minutes or so. Throughout the movie we see the interaction between the two central characters as Brad has sealed off the house on suggestion by the news on the radio. It gets insanely boring as the same conversation is had over and over and over again.

There are two glaring problems: firstly, that we never actually see all the panic. It's all described on the radio. In fact, probably the only message in the film that's hinted at is that the media may not be a reliable source of information and may be hiding something. I was expecting this big twist at the end where its revealed that the government was behind it all, or there really wasn't any poison, or something regarding misinformation.

But, no, we get this butt-fuckingly STUPID twist ending that attempts to make the aforementioned point but fails miserably. It's a useless plot device and cheapens the film immensely. It seemed like a shocker just tacked on to jolt us back after we dozed off during the last "When will I get rescued?" speech. We never get any of the answers to the questions the characters ask. Why build up to just screw us over like that?

The film manages to make me feel genuinely frightened and genuinely pissed at the same time. It has moderately high production values, and for an independant film it is above the pack, but it could have been sooooo much better.

62/100

American Gangster review

Ridley Scott has made some of the best and most influential movies ever made. He's one of our best modern directors. Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down- all stellar motion pictures. His last fewefforts(Matchstick Men, Kingdom of Heaven, The Good Year) left something to be desired, but has his new film American Gangster put him back in the spotlight as a legitimate director?

Yes, yes it has.

The film, set in early 70s New York at the tail of the Vietnam War, follows Frank Lucas(Denzel Washington) as he rises through the ranks and becomes the drug-running king of Harlem and the major crime boss in all of New York City. Honest-but-outcast cop Richie Roberts(Russel Crowe) is hired to help take him down.

I'll start out by complementing the film's greatest strength- the chemistry and acting between the stellar ensemble cast. crowe and Washington are fantastic as they almost always are. Josh Brolin, Ruby Dee, Carla Gugino, and Cuba Gooding Jr. all give great performances even though their parts aren't as big or important as Crowe's and Washington's. They all work fantastically together to bring to life this story.

The story isn't completely and totally original, but it is very solid and is fleshed out quite nicely. The film has a nice subtext about the role family plays and how important honesty is.

The film is..."dirty", I guess. There's a lot of violence, language, drugs, and nudity. This adds to the film's real-life feel. It's inspired by a true story, but I'm not letting that weigh any towards my rating of the film because they take a lot of liberty with the material. It's a film, so that's expected, but I'm not letting the "real life cool factor" seep its way in.

The cinematography and music are fitting, but not absolutely amazing.

Overall, the film doesn't have any glaring flaws or mistakes. It's gritty, highly entertaining, and wonderfully paced. It's 158 minutes long, but it doesn't once feel like a chore or a bore. It's thoroughly engrossing. It deserves its critical praise and Oscar nominations, and maybe more.

93/100

The Film Ratings System and the Heinous Double Standard of Society

Today my heart jumped in excitement as I was checking to see what DVDs came out today. I knew that American gangster came out, and I discovered that In the valley of Elah came out today as well. But might heart really sang when i saw that Ang Lee's Lust, Caution had finally hit DVD shelves.

But then my heart sank. I knew nobody would carry the movie, or at least the original version. Why?

It's rated NC-17, that's why.

Let me tell you a story, little children. gather round and keep your ears open. This is a story about good 'ole American corruption and greed. Pay attention, and hear the truth.

Back in the late 60s, the Motion Picture Association of America, a non-profit organization that rates films, is in great need of a new ratings system to replace the old Hays code. MPAA Chairman Jack Valenti implemented a new system with four ratings- G(general audiences), M(mature audiences), R(restricted audience), and X(no children allowed). M was almost immedietely replaced with PG(parental guidance suggested). These ratings showed wich films were appropriate for which audiences.

G is for everybody. It contains no or very little offensive or mature material(equivalent to today's G and many PG movies).
PG is for more mature audiences and contains some mature material, but it is not extreme and children can see them without an adult, although adult guidence is suggested(equivalent to today's more edgy PG and pretty much all PG-13 movies).
R is for restricted audiences. Contains considerable, but not extreme adult material. Children under 17 must be accompanied by an adult(equivalent to today's less controversial R rated movies).
X is for only adult audiences. This does not mean the films are exploitation or patently offensive. It simply means they are too explicit for any children to see(equivalent of controversial movies like Basic Instinct and Passion of the Christ, which contain outrageous sexual or violent content). This rating was not copywrited by the MPAA, but the other three were.

In early 1970, after less than two years of having the ratings system in place, an X-rated film, Midnight Cowboy, won the Best Picture Academy Award. But over time, people started abusing the X-rating. You see, before the new ratings system, the old Hays code had pretty much prohibited almost all adult content. Now, filmmakers were "free' so to speak. But eventually, people started to self-apply the X-rating to the newly flourishing porn business. Pretty soon, the X rating became equated with filth. That's a dirty shame.

In the mid-eighties, a new rating, PG-13, was created. In the early 90s, X was replaced by NC-17 in an attempt to revive the legitimate adult picture. A few films received the rating, such as Showgirls, but the stigma remained and does so to this day.

The problems go deeper than that. It's a four-part problem. Four distinct entites are to blame.

1. The MPAA. The MPAA is unfair. They are much much more likely to give films the NC-17 based on sexual content(i.e., The Dreamers, Mysterious Skin, Shortbus), but uber-violent films still get R(Hostel II, Passion of the Christ, Rambo). They often give out ratings that don't make sense or are unfair when compared to similar films(School of Rock and Whale Rider got PG-13s despite being great family films). They have astrict code only allowing certain amounts of sexual content and swearing(not unlike the Hays code). However, they serve a purpose and keep the government out of controlling the movie business.

2. The Businesses. Most rental chains, retailers, and theaters won't carry NC-17 films due to their reputations and the reputation of NC-17 equating porn. Plus, watchdog groups often put a boatload of pressure on them. People like to keep anything offensive from ever reaching their children, and of course it's the business' responsibility, not the parents, to keep "filth" away.

3. The Production Companies. NC-17 means financial disaster due to the above reasons. Production companies often pressure filmmakers to cut down or even spice up their films to get a different rating and thus get more money. Film is more a business than an art form.

Most importantly...

4. Us. Society as a whole has created this double standard. It stems from America's heritage as a Christian nation, yet one with an extreme propensity for violence and war. Sex is bad, violence is fine. Why? Is it really more evil to sleep with your partner than it is to slit some guys throat? Apparently so. The MPAA, the businesses, and the production companies are all reflecting this. It's also because of the lack of wisdom in parenting. People use the media to babysit their children more often now, but they still want to be "good" parents, so they manipulate the law and the media so nothing bad ever reaches their children.

I favor a "marketplace of ideas." I favor nothing to be off-limits and for people to make their own choices. Note, I do NOT want parents to let their kids see anything and everything. But the PARENTS THEMSELVES have to moniter their children. Teach them right from wrong. Take them outside instead of letting them watch Nickelodeon all day long. When they get older, they can make the right choices.

I'm sick and tired of seeing the unfairness towards movies in the way they are rated. I'm sick of seeing moviesg etting butchered and cut. i see film as first and foremost an art form. There once was a time when art and entertainment were not mutually exclusive. But really, all signs seem to point to either the world of Mike Judge's Idiocracy, or the world of V for Vendetta. Just so you know, society, they both suck. Get your act together.

My Top 50 Favorite Movies

Right now, it is time for me to let you know my 50 favorite movies. These represent a wide variety of taste and opinion, but it will let you know what movies I think are exemplary. This should serve as a guage for the type of movies I like and what I suggest you all to watch.

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark
2. Memento
3. Akira
4. Chinatown
5. Jaws
6. Donnie Darko
7. Dead Alive
8. M
9. The Crow
10. Jurassic Park
11. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
12. Fight Club
13. Leon
14. The Lord of the Rings
15. Psycho
16. The Thing
17. Oldboy
18. Seven Samurai
19. The Matrix
20. Blue Velvet
21. Se7en
22. The Shining
23. Gladiator
24. There Will Be Blood
25. The Big Lebowski
26. Straw Dogs
27. Day of the Dead
28. A Clockwork Orange
29. 12 Angry Men
30. Taxi Driver
31. Aliens
32. American Beauty
33. The Warriors
34. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
35. King Kong
36. Twelve Monkeys
37. Mulholland Dr.
38. The Lion King
39. Werckmeister Harmonies
40. Unforgiven
41. Glory
42. Saving Private Ryan
43. The Wild Bunch
44. Brazil
45. Airplane
46. Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
47. Naked Lunch
48. Back to the Future
49. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
50. Rocky

So, yeah...I pretty much specialize in "modern" cinema, but I'm working on seeing more older films.

The Spiderwick Chronicles review

I'll just say it right now- The Spiderwick Chronicles is the most magical movie I've seen since Pan's Labyrinth. The film follows young Jared Grace(Freddie Highmore) and his family as they move from New York to a large, mysterious house that belonged to his great-granduncle, Arthur Spiderwick. Jared uncovers a book that contains many secrest abouth the natural world that cannot be readily seen by the human eye- Arthur Spiderwick's Field Guide to the Fantastical World Around You.

This movie has a fantastic story and tells it well. That is so important in film. You MUST tell a story that people can relate to, that entertains, and that has a message. This film has all three. It develops the story wonderfully, as well.

The acting is pretty good from child actor Freddy Highmore(Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, August Rush). He actually plays two characters since Jared has a twin brother. The casting is great. Nick Nolte plays the evil, hideous Ogre Mulgarath, and David Strathairn plays the kind old Arthur Spiderwick himself. They even get Seth Rogen to play a crude, fat hobgoblin and martin Short to play the timid keeper of the book.

The creature design and visual effects are done by none other than Industrial Light and Magic, the masters of special effects. The film is beautiful and the creatures grotesque at times but beautiful at others.

Everything meshes together here- the cast, the story, the effects, the music, the cinematography...all of it!

Beware, though. It's a dark and mature story for a PG rated movie. It deals with divorce very plainly and realistically. It has a couple violent attack scenes and some genuine frighteneing moments. I'd recommend any parents reading to only take kids age grade school and above- don't take anybody under 6 or so. It will go way over their head and give them nightmares.

Also, don't go expecting a huge scale movie. It's much more subdued. Sure, the world may be on the line, but we don't get any huge battles like in Narnia. In fact, it's much more a children's version of Pan's Labyrinth than it is your standard fantasy fare.

All in all, the film touched me and made me feel like a kid again. The only negatives are that the film is short(97 minutes), and that the acting from some of the other supporting characters isn't exactly Oscar material. But it accomplishes extremely well what it set out to do- make a stellar action/fantasy film. For that it gets an

89/100

Jumper review

Teleportation would be an aweomse power to have no doubt. I can imagine myself teleporting into girl's dorms, the "employees only" section of any random store, and maybe even use my powers to become a superhero. Yeah, that sounds good!

Jumper is the latest sci-fi/actioner from big budget Hollywood. It features the AWESOME talents of Hayden Christiansen and Jamie Bell(as well as small parts for Sam Jackson and Diane Lane). It's got a screenplay by David S. Goyer(who people will remember for giving us Blade Trinity and The Invisible...or not). It's got a shaky camera! It's got...

OK, if you can't tell I'm being facetious, then please don't ever watch another movie again- you'll only feed the vast crap-churning machine of the mainstream.

This movie is about people who teleport starting at age 5, something the movie never seems to explain. These people are called "Jumpers", because "Teleporters" is just too damn long(I remember in the trailer where the title was abbreviated even further to "JMPR"). There is a secret organization of people called "Paladins", who seek to destroy the Jumpers for no reason aside from "they were not meant to have this power". Well, according to the film, they've been around for hundreds of years and were behind the Holy Wars as well as the Salem witch hunts. Yes, anything religion attacks is apparently related to Jumpers.

Wow. I could NOT make this up. I wouldn't even fathom of making up something so unbelivably...unbelievable! And that is just the top of the creaky, rusty barrel that Jumper is.

In terms of plot and character development, this movie works out like a 14-year-old's X-Men fanfiction. It has absolutely no cohesion and all the characters are just stock for a couple mildly amusing fight scenes.

OK, to give you an idea of what I mean, here are some examples. A 15-year-old boy is somehow able to run away from home, get a hotel room, rob a bank, and not be detected for 8 years. Characters "jump" all over the place and nobody seems to pay one second's notice other than one little boy(who obviously nobody will believe since he's just a kid). After the aformentioned 8 years, the now-grown boy(Hayden Christiansen) returns to woo his high-school scrush. He takes her to Rome(where she's always wanted to go), and apparently this was enough for him to just walk up to her in the hotel room and start ripping off her clothes. OK...I'll make a note that if I ever see my high-school crush in a few more years, that I'll just take her some place and start ripping her clothes off. Let's see what happens.

The film insults your intelligence by coming not taking the time to explain much of anything. We don't get any backstory other than a short "So this is my life up til now" speech at the beginning. The movie attempts this grand scale and tries to create mythos, but it fails at every attempt. I don't know WHY for the life of me they decided to make our hero's mother(Diane Lane, who has about 47 seconds of screen time), who left him at the age of 5, suddenly appear and reveal herslef as a Paladin. We don't know any of the backstory of the British jumper who has a grudge against the great villain Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson, other than a very passing reference that his parents were killed by said villain.

nobody has encentive, nobody says much of anything, and nothing really happens. The film doesn't even have a resolution- it's still the same cat-and-mouse game at the end. This begs the question- what was the purpose of this movie other than reunite the hero with his girl?

OK, I get that this movie isn't supposed to be realistic, but at least make an attempt! X-Men was able to do it for two films, Batman was able to do it in three films, and Spider-Man was able to do it at times in all three films. Why couldn't the abhorrent direction and hideous script been reworked? Why couldn't we have gotten actors instead of 2x4s to play the roles. Hayden Christiansen's "acting" is like a clawed hammer being scraped against my skull.

The camera is shaky, and there are some of the WORST character composites I've EVER seen. There are two pretty entertaining action scenes, but out of 90 minutes you'd think more than two scenes would crop up. The special effects are good, but often times I had to rub my eyes and shake my head due to the pain the convulsion-inducing cinematography inflicted on my eyes.

Bad. Just outright bad. Don't see it, ever.

19/100

We Own The Night review

Last year, Martin Scorsese made a little movie about moles and double crossing in the Boston police department. it won numerous awards including Best Director and Best Picture. That movie was The Departed, one of the best crime movies from the past few years.

This movie, James Gray's We Own The Night, seeks to continue the trend of great crime movies with strong ensamble casts. Does it measure up?

The film stars Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duval, and Eva Mendez. Two brothers(Phoenix, Wahlberg) live on opposite sides of the law- one is a cop while the other is a shady nightclub manager. In a world full of drug running crooks, will one brother choose family or career?

The plot is serviceable, but not original. The execution is good for the material, and the acting is quite good. The problem is, the movie doesn't strive for any excellence. It's good, but doesn't even seem to try anything new or extraordinary.

So, there isn't really much else to say. It's really an average but entertaining movie. It's a great rent, and it may even become a favorite if you really like cop movies.

The real problem is that it would inevitably be compared to The Departed, and it's so hard to live up to that movie. It's much shorter, less urgent, less interesting, and overall just less engaging. But, if you really enjoy cop action/crime movies, go ahead and give it a rent.

74/100

RIP Roy Scheider(1932-2008)

Rest in peace, Chief Brody. Rest in peace, and may you hunt maneating sharks forever in the afterlife.

The Nines review

The Nines is a psychological drama starring Ryan Reynolds(Van Wilder, Blade Trinity, Waiting) and Hope Davis(About Schmidt, American Splendor, The Weatherman). The film follows in the footsteps of Mulholland Dr., Donnie Darko, and eXistenZ as a twisty, mind-bending character drama with a special metaphysical twist.

The film has three parts divided into three stories- part one revolves around a substance-abusing actor, part two around a struggling television writer, and part three around a videogame designer. The great thing is that all of the parts have the same four central actors plating different, but occasionally overlapping, roles. All three of the stories are somehow connected with the number nine, and the central characters start to feel an eerie consequence on the horizon.

Now, doesn't that just sound AWESOME? Well, I'm a sucker for metaphysical, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise mind-testing movies. That's just me and my tastes. When I found out this movie existed, and that it had been a 2007 Sundance Festival selection, I wet my pants. This is like a fan's dream come true!

To be honest, I really liked it. I really did. It's quite subtle, but it isn't SO subtle that you can't wrap your mind around it. It's very clever in how it unravels it's mysteries. The movie almost references intself a couple times, it's that clever! All of the stories are set in real life(as opposed to cliche-land, where most movies take place). I didn't have to suspend my disbelief until the weird stuff starts happening, and that isn't a negative.

The film delves into some serious philosophical theories. I'm not going to go into specifics because I don't have the time nor the energy, but I can say if you pay attention and have a trained eye and mind, that you'll thoroughly enjoy it as I did.

The acting is usually above-average to good, but nothing special. Althoguh in a couple scenes, when Reynolds is playing a gay character, he goes horribly overboard with that stereotypical "gay" accent. But most of the time, he hunkers down and gives a believable performance. I mean, looking at his track record, you'd think he'd be making more Rob Schnieder picks, but he really didn't screw this up like I thought he would.

Some negatives, however:

This movie has a couple of lines that were terrible. One line involving rabbits is completely stupid and ridiculous. The script could have been tightened up. Overall ,the film could have had a little more depth and developement.

Also, the film isn't tense enough. The first story starts off great and has an awesome tense feel to it, but the other stories don't quite flesh it out as well as it should have. Pretty much, if the filmmakers had just taken a little more time, they could have tweaked it to perfection. Still, if you like Lynchian or metaphysical movies, check it out. It's a very promising start for director John August.

82/100

10 Movies You May Have Missed

It's a slow movie week so far. I'll be renting a few movies on Tuesday and seeing a couple in the theater on Thursday, but until then, I present to you a list of movies you may have missed. These are the recent(last couple of years) movies that you probably saw on the New Release rack but never bothered to rent them, whether it be due to bad publicity, independent producers, or foreign location. Well, I'm here to tell you that you need to.

- Zwartboek(Black Book) Paul Verhoeven(Robocop, Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers) directs this sensual, dirty, and very visceral movie about a female spy for the Dutch underground who seduces a German captain near the end of WWII. It's a great foreign film that didn't even get an Oscar nomination last year. 85/100

- El Maquinista(The Machinist) Before Christian Bale became the Caped Crusader, he did this independent movie that studios hated so much they had to film it in Spain so the director could have full creative control. It's a puzzling psycho thriller in the vein of Psycho and Mulholland Dr. 89/100

- Primer True cerebral science fiction films don't come around very often, but this 80 minute independent thriller/drama uses some of the best science and inserts it into a real-life situation to make the most plausible(if not near-impossible to understand) time travel movie. 80/100

- Feast One mother of a horror movie. It's the most recent "Project Greenlight" movie. It features horny mutants, maggot-infested rednecks, buckets of gore, and a cast including Balthazar Getty, Henry Rollins, and Jason Mews. It's a classic cheesball grossout horror-comedy. 85/100

-Cache/Hidden Michael Haneke directs this unusual but potent psychological thriller that gives you the heebie-jeebies. There is one particular scene that just surprises you in it's shocking glory. 76/100

- Idiocracy Mike Judge's killer comedic mind goes overboard in this politically motivated comedy showing what our society will look like in 500 years- a pool of 60 IQ near-monkeys named after commercial products. I just love the fact that Carl Jr's sells "Extra Big-Ass Fries" 84/100

- Unknown A thriller crossbreed of Saw and The Usual Suspects sporting a cast including Paul Giamatti, Jeremy Sisto, and Jim Caviziel- how could this not have made at least 50 million dollars? When, it didn't, and it snuck quietly into rentals stores nationwide and barely made a peep. Rent it now. 82/100

-Renaissance This is a great neo-noir/sci-fi drama that puts you in a visually stunning and beautifully animated world. It has a potent message and just an overall sleek and hypnotic effect. Features the voice talents of Bond himself, Daniel Craig. 78/100

- The Proposition THE best western since Unforgiven and Tombstone back in the early nineties. This Australian movie stars Guy Pearce of Memento fame and follows a man hired to hunt down and kill one of his outlaw brothers in order to save his other brother. Amazing visuals and a downright brutal expereince. 91/100

- Brick A true neo-noir starring one of the best young actors around- Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It has some fantastic dialogue and a unique, interesting, and highly entertaining story. One of the best scripts I've ever seen turned into a movie It's really one of my favorite movies. 95/100

There you go. 10 good to amazing movies you need to get out and rent. i hope you have some extra cash laying around. Maybe dig around in your couch.

The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford review

"Art Film" is a phrase that turns off a LOT of casual theater-goers. It's equated with long, confusing movies with a lot to say but not a lot to do.

The outrageously long-titled "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" can, and does, easily fit into that category.

The film follows famous outlaw Jesse James(Brad Pitt) during the latter years of his career and his subsequent assassination by his obsessive and jealous partner Robert Ford(Casey Affleck).

The first thing I noticed is that the film is quite an exercise in patience at its 2 hours and 40 minute runtime. But if you can bear it, the film has quite a lot to offer.

There is a lot of depth in the characters. Robert Ford and Jesse James get fully fleshed out in all their twisted glory. The film is low on action, but deep in beauty. The cinematography(by Roger Deakins, nominated for an Oscar for this film and his work on No Country for Old Men) is breathtaking. The pacing is good for such a long movie. It starts off a little slow, but it picks up in the last 45 minutes of so.

I really loved Casey Affleck in this movie. He has really come into his own this year. I think Andrew Dominik has a gem here with his first directorial attempt. It's a methodical, cerebral experience that is also a simple painting. It does something that is essential for movies of this ilk: it isn't boring.

However, there is something that severely irritates me: The Narrator. They have a narrator that always chimes in at the most profound times and gives mostly pointless comments on things I could easily interpret on my own. Sometimes he has valid points to say, but a lot of the time he just annoys me.

But, it's still an impressive achievement. I give it

88/100