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

Across the Universe review

Who doesn't like The Beatles? Probably not many people, one would think. Well, I decided to rent Across the Universe over The Brave One(a kickass revenge movie, might I add).

I wish I hadn't.

The film, starring Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess, follows around a group of young adults in New York in the turbulent late sixties. They must deal with the Vietnam War, the draft, Civil Rights, homosexuality, drug culture, and learn to grow in love all at the same time.

I can't really say it's a bad movie, but I can say i disliked it for a number of reasons, but first I'll give some good.

The music is great. The problem is, it's The Beatles, so I can't really credit the movie for that. The actors sing pretty well, but it isn't up to par with other musicals I've seen(and I haven't seen many, so that's not quite a good sign). Bono has a really cool cameo, and his scene is particularly amusing. The film is at it's best when it goes all psychadelic and almost Lynchian on you. Sadly, there are only two or three of these sequences.

Those positives aside, the film is one big jumbled pile of pretention and cliche- two things that I can't stand in a film. It obviously thinks it's making a big statement about life, love, and dealing with change, but it's so damn predictable! I could tell from the get go what was going to happen throughout the movie. As a result, I was really just hoping for the "story" to pass and more songs and cool visuals to come up.

The message of the film might have been better if the film was a little more, I don't know, SUBTLE. I mean, how many fucking love songs do we need? How many references to revolution do we need? Do we really need to see a bunch of naked men carrying around the statue of liberty through a miniature Vietnam? I mean, please! Use a bit of judgment! Make it more subtle, streamline the film(it's at least 20 minutes too long), add some depth to the characters(some of the characters get so little screentime you wonder why they were even in the film), and overall just rewrite the painfully lovestruck chick flick cliche scipt, and you might have a good film.

It's like someone just decided, "Hey, I like The Beatles! Lets make a movie where all the characters are named after Beatles songs, insert a whole bunch of turbulent '60s imagery, and add a sappy overdone romance all set to Beatles songs! Oscar Gold!"

Really, there's no reason to see the movie unless you REALLY like The Beatles, or have a girlfriend over. That's probably the only thing the movie is good for- getting your significant other to fall for you.

50/100

Meet the Spartans review

What...the...hell...did...I...just...watch?

Meet the Spartans...wow, what can I even say? How do I begin? With the...plot?

Ok, here's the plot: attempt to spoof 300 and add a whole bunch of other meaningless shit in there as well.

We follow Leonidas and his band of 13 spartans as they fight against Persia. Let's get down to brass tax here- this movie blows. This movie sucks massive donkey dick. This movie is the pure essence of filth. It is the bane of humankind and should be banned from all theaters.

Ok, I get stupid comedies. I get spoofs. In fact, I love Spoofs! I even liked Scary Movie 3 and Kung Pow. But what those movies did was make actual witty jokes and comments. This movie(along with it's second cousin Epic Movie) just use the exact same plot as the movie it spoofs and adds heaps of gay jokes, MTV references, product placements, lame slapstick sight gags, and gross excrement jokes. It's got a disfigured Paris Hilton. It's got references to YouTube, American Idol, Americas Next Top Model, So You Think You Can Dance, Deal or No Deal, Ugly Betty, Shrek, Spider Man, Ghost Rider, Rocky Balboa, Happy Feet, Stomp the Yard, Borat, and Hills Have Eyes. Why? Don't ask me.

Seriously, why the fuck make it so damn recent? You know what, the subtlety here just amazes me. They name the traitor Traitoro. They name the son of a character Sonnio. They blatantly spell out every single reference like the audience is fucking autistic! The narrator literally says "that fat guy from Borat" and "Tobey Maguire from Spider Man 3." They actually make SURE you know that the dancing penguin is Happy Feet. They make SURE that you know the guy with the flaming skull is Ghost Rider.

As if that wasn't enough, we get full on Nike, Dentyne Ice, Budweiser, and Gatoraide commercials.

The sheer audacity of the amounts of slaptick and gay jokes appalls me. How many times do we need to hear words like "rear" and "sword" in double-entendre format? How many times do we need to see people fall, slip, and crash on random objects?

The movie has two particularly shitty sequences- the Death Pit and the Dance Off. They both make up about a fourth of the movie and do nothing other than bore you. There are a whole bunch of very, very badly impersonated celebrities. As I listened, I heard not a peep of laughter in the theater.

The only thing this movie does well is give Kevin Sorbo and the entire Mad TV cast extra work. They couldn't even get more than a couple dozen extras- they have a running gag about blue screens. It's only 67 minutes long INCLUDING a four minute perforance of "I Will Survive" as the credits roll. How the fuck does this pass a cinema? HOW?!?!

This says something about society. If this movie beats out the entertainingly brutal Rambo for the top spot at the box office, then the world of Mike Judge's "Idiocracy"(a fantastic movie, by the way) is not far off. I applaud Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg- they know how to make money, and for that I can only say

Fuck you Mr Seltzer and Mr. Friedberg, and fuck society as a whole.

0/100

Michael Clayton review

I really enjoy any movie involving crime or courtrooms. It's a fascination of mine. So, when Michael Clayton was re-released, I saw it as soon as I had money.

I wasn't disappointed.

The Academy gave it seven nominations. Richard Roeper called this his favorite film of the year. It's not the best in my opinion, but it sure is close.

The film starts out with Tom Wilkinson's character, Arthur Edens, giving one of the most insanely creepy yet powerful speeches put on film. Arthur is a leading attorney at a high-powered law firm(and also a manic-depressive who has stopped taking his medicine) who has just stripped naked trying to rid himself of the filth he feels he is covered in. It turns out that he has some key information reagrding a six year long class-action lawsuit against a major client- a mega-corporation called U*North- and he is willing to spill the beans. George Clooney is Michael Clayton, an ex ADA and current "fixer," an attorney who specializes in arranging immunity for defendants. He's the best in the business, and he has to deal with the potent situation.

This film does two things amazingly well. First, it succeeds in carrying a splitting moral message about truth and conscience. It tells it's story with flair and passion. It has great focus and doesn't stray far from it. It's a very tight picture.

Secondly, the characters breathe and live. Clooney, Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton, who plays the borderline-unstable U*North's chief council Karen Crowder, are all great. They all deserve the nominations they have from the academy.

The film is powerful, plain and simple. It's just explosive! I loved it. The only bad thing I can say is that the film most likely won't stand up to many rewatches. it's a very powerful and impressive achievement, but it doesn't have the familiarity that Juno provides, or the uniqueness of No Country for Old Men.

But go see it anyway. It's in my top 10 of the year.

92/100