Reviews

From the first moment of Loki's premiere, big, fat, juicy, sloppy tears erupted all across the DC Fandom causing massive flooding of the dark and much-beleaguered DC Universe, eventually resulting in an overflow onto this IMDB Loki page.

Marvel apparently considered rendering aid through Disney, however being bogged down with so much success caused scheduling difficulties.

Borat Make a *Glorious* #2! Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is very naiiice!

America Mayor Rudolph Giuliani say he not like film.

America Mayor Rudolph Giuliani say he very much LIE down to fix pants like in nation of Kazakhstan where we not stand up to tuck the shirt. Much success.

You watch.

Chin qui

Despite all the hate Tarantino gets, there is no other filmmaker alive today who is more easily recognized by his body of work.

Love him or hate him, you know him, and you know his movies.

With Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, he once again takes a tongue in cheek approach to serious, almost untouchable subject matter and makes it not just watchable, but memorable.

While we were at one of the only pre-screenings in my city, it has taken me a while to review this title, because I've been torn on it.

Yes, Joaquin Phoenix, who has always been a veritable bastion of talent, was masterful in the role. Yes, Phoenix's portrayal of his character was riveting. Yes, the story was both gripping and also necessary, especially today when it seems that mental illness is running rampant. Yes, the tone was magnificently set within both the cinematic and art direction.

What I have a problem with, is the way it tied into the Batman universe and particularly with what it had in common and what differentiated it from the Jokers of the past. I still have problems making the two worlds merge.

I would say that The Laundromat is a no-holds-barred look into the very REAL Panama Papers scandal, but that would be a lie, as it actually does hold back A LOT and does not delve deeply enough into detailing much of the corruption which ensued then, and which still exists today.

For those unfamiliar with the "Panama Papers" scandal, in 2016, a whistle-blower released over 11 MILLION documents from the law firm Mossack & Fonseca (just ONE of the law firms involved in this kind of business), which detailed almost every aspect regarding the structure and practices of the shell companies which are used by some of the world's richest people in order to avoid paying taxes. This film, while presenting much of the story, fails to present all of it. One of the things the film did NOT cover, was what happened to journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who first broke the story.

I believe that one of the reasons Soderbergh chose to not cover that part, and other equally disturbing aspects of the scandal, was that he wanted to present a film which would speak in almost lighthearted (if such a thing can even be done on this topic) and simplistic terms that most anyone could understand. As such, the film is presented as mostly comedy, which to me, is both unfortunate and genius. I mean, how best to swallow a bitter, but necessary pill, than to camouflage it with chocolate? While the chocolate in no way makes the pill less effective, it does help it go down easier. In the same manner, what was presented, although not complete, is in no way false. The only falsehoods, come from those who choose to lie to themselves, and to others, by thinking and propagating the thought that presenting these truths is somehow meant to demean them or their political party. These individuals should ask themselves: if your political party needs to be defended from simple truth, facts, data and documentation, how believable, honorable or strong is it to begin with?

Lastly, I am not a "shill", I do not work for the film or anyone associated with it; I gain nothing from this or any other review; nor do I really care if anyone believes me. What I do care about is that due to emotional cry-baby attitudes and just plain ignorance, the truth is being silenced more and more, not just on IMDB, but across several platforms. I care that it is truly a tragedy, travesty and sin when ill-informed people CHOOSE to STAY ill-informed. I care about the absurdity of ill-informed people doubling-down and trying to manipulate ratings (such as is the case here) in order to try and sway other such people to also remain ill-informed. WHO in their right minds would choose misinformation for themselves when a vast plethora of information is readily available to us (now more than at any other time in the history of the world). When you think about it, choosing to remain uninformed seems almost unnatural in today's world. The term: "educate yourselves" should not be seen as an insult. This film does that, whether the viewer wants it or not.

You know that when a film garners this much hate and reviews which call it "Sick, sick, sick" and "disgusting", and go on and on about how all the "violence is towards women, blah, blah" ... it has to be something special.

And this one is.

It is resonatingly (yes, I made that up) witty and really quite funny. In fact, it is almost too funny to be a "horror" film, and although it was certainly gory, it had nowhere near the gore of most horror films. It was just right IF you are looking for a film to satisfy the horror-seeking fan in you and which makes you laugh at the same time. In my book, the best of both worlds.

As for the reviews which mention violence towards women: get over it. I'm a woman and I detest women like these reviewers who demand to be seen as something more, but then fail to live up to being able to 'take it'. Grow up. You give real women like me a bad name by association.

In closing, this is one I highly suggest you watch for yourselves and make up your own mind about, but go in knowing that there is humor in it and hardly any scares. In short, a bloody good time.

How could such a good idea go so wrong?

The idea for this is pretty sweet, and in today's TV program selection, where everything is pretty much rated R, it is nice to think that a program like this (PGish) got the green light as a series. I happen to like Ted Danson and Kristen Bell as well, so I was looking forward to something at least moderately interesting and cute.

It isn't.

I gave the first few episodes a chance because I thought it was just getting its footing and that it would improve.

It hasn't.

It is a mish-mash of two good actors thrown in with bottom of the barrel ones and no matter the plot, you simply can't have two actors carry an entire show, especially when some of the characters are not only badly acted, but genuinely uninteresting and annoying to the extreme.

Needs a total revamp.

A+

Every so often I like to go into films knowing very little about them. It's gratifying not hearing any news stories, or Internet rumors, or early reviews before you see a film because you can genuinely feel surprised by every passing minute of it. In the case of Identity, I only saw a trailer for it once in theatres and I saw various TV spots before its release, but other than that I knew nothing about the core of the story. I went in with no preconceived notions or opinions. For a change I was being a submissive film viewer.

After the credits rolled (by the way I rarely stay until the end of the credits) I was so amazed and surprised by the film that I had just experienced. Identity is a highly original, beautifully constructed, and a mildly scary film that will (excuse my language) do a serious mind f*** on your brain.

The less you know about Identity's plot, the better. This is the kind of film you need to go into knowing very little about. There are a few twists, plenty of scares, and also a very surprising ending that will have some people disappointed, or praising its creativity. I'm definitely in the latter on this one.

Identity is also a masterpiece of atmosphere. Something that I think is the most important aspect of any movie in this genre. Whether it's Halloween, setting the scene for small town horror, or The Ring, drenching us in very dark and Gothic scenery, atmosphere is what makes or breaks a horror film. Thankfully Identity succeeds by creating an atmosphere that is truly frightening and visually impressive. The motel is a perfect setting for the proceedings that take place throughout the night.

A nice ensemble cast rounds out Identity's many incredible attributes. John Cusack gives a very good performance as Ed. Cusack has always been good at playing the 'everyday normal guy' and he uses this to great effect here. It's a layered performance that offers some surprises throughout the picture.

The other high profile performer is the always-reliable Ray Liotta as Rhodes. Liotta never seems to disappoint whenever he's performing, even in sub-par material. He's just as good as he usually is in this picture and he uses his sometimes-abrasive personality to its utmost potential.

Amanda Peet gives her best performance to date as Paris. She has some nice moments where she's allowed sprinkle some comic relief throughout an otherwise dreary picture. However, when she's required to exhibit real fear, she is more than capable. She also shares some good scenes with Cusack during a few key moments in the film.

Clea Duvall and William Lee Scott supply some youth and tenacity as Ginny and Lou. Duvall probably has the role typically called the 'scream queen role' in most horror films and she does well with what she's given. There were times that I could genuinely feel her fear. Scott is given less to do as Lou but he does have some good scenes with Duvall that requires a decent amount of emotion.

John Hawkes and John C. McGinley are also adequate in supporting roles. Hawkes is given a fair share of the comedic lines and for the most part he plays the part well. McGinley fairs better as the husband who must tend for his injured wife and social inadequate stepson. If I felt sympathy for anyone the most, it was his character.

Rebecca Demornay is given very little to do as the failed movie actress but there are some funny jokes made at her expense as one character asks her 'didn't you used to be that actress?' This is some clever commentary on Demornay's obviously fledgling career. The same can be said for Jake Busey as the convict, who is given little to do and seems out of place when paired with the more talented actors in the picture.

What's important is the work these actors do when they're all together. This is very much an ensemble and they play off each other's fear. Their reactions to these situations make the picture all the more frightening.

On the other end of the story, Alfred Molina brings a bit of substance to his role, despite have limited screen time as the psychiatrist and Pruitt Taylor Vance will shock, amaze, and terrify you as the murderer waiting for his execution. Vance's portrayal is very frightening, and an ultimately brilliant performance. Given the limited screen time he does a lot with the role.

Identity is filled with secrets, surprises, and scares that will have moviegoers talking for quite some time. Much like The Ring it has the potential to have some word of mouth appeal. However, don't listen too much to what people have to say about it because it's best to experience this modern masterpiece of fear, knowing very little about it. I guarantee you will be surprised.

B-

I was a little hard on this film when I initially reviewed it upon its release. After watching it on DVD again I realized that there is a very clever and beautiful story to be told but problems in the script prevent it from truly taking off. The performances, cinematography, and music are all great but it just can't seem to find a solid direction.

A film's trailer is a gateway to success and sometimes failure. In the case of Abandon, it proved to be the latter. The film was marketed as a non-stop psychological thriller but to be honest the thrills are few and far between. Abandon is more a character study with the atmosphere of a thriller. The film's main priority is to tell a story and I think audiences were really disappointed when they saw a movie that was short on thrills. That could explain its not so great $10 million dollar box office gross.

Abandon is about a beautiful young girl named Katie Burke (Katie Holmes) who is nearing her graduation from a very prestigious school. She has a nice future ahead of her, including a potential job at a top New York firm. However, things begin to unravel when Katie's past comes back to haunt her. A police detective, by the name of Wade Handler (Benjamin Bratt), is investigating the disappearance of Embry Langan (Charlie Hunnam), Katie's wealthy and sometimes eccentric ex-boyfriend. Embry has not been seen or heard from in 2 years, and the lawyers for his estate want to know whether he's alive or dead. When the detective begins to bring up several events from the past, Katie begins to see Embry around campus and other various locations. Has Embry come back for love or revenge?

Abandon has a lot of positives but a thriller it certainly is not. Abandon falters when it tries, at great lengths, to scare and surprise its audience. Stephen Gaghan, who won an Oscar for writing Traffic and is directing for the first time with this film, can't seem to properly direct scenes that are suppose to keep us on the edge of our seats. However, He does a good job of making us wonder if Embry is really back or if Katie is seeing things. Most of his encounters come about when she's half asleep or frustrated and the possibility of these two different outcomes are one of the scripts strengths. Another scene that resonates involves a truly alarming surprise for our main character when she's alone in the library. Other than that, all the thrills are by the book or non-existent.

Abandon's biggest strength is what isn't shown in the trailers. First and foremost this film works as a very deep character study. As a character, Katie is very interesting and her past experiences with men (including her father) who have left her plays an important part into the mysterious disappearance of Embry. The character is well developed and several scenes give us great insight into her inner struggles. We learn about her relationship with Embry through beautifully filmed flashbacks that are probably the best aspects of this picture. The flashbacks are backed by a very moody score and a sense of realism that make for really good scenes. We learn through these sequences that Embry and Katie were a very happy couple, with a possibly nice future ahead of them. When the film switches back to real-time we realize why his disappearance has hurt her so much. There is also an interesting tidbit about how she attracts men and doesn't even realize it. This part of the story establishes many key points in the plot that I simply can't reveal here. Needless to say Katie's development as a character is far more interesting than the thrills, or lack thereof, that are present in this film. More emphasis should've been placed on the characters and not on what might scare us.

I must give major kudos to Katie Holmes for conveying all the emotions necessary to establish Katie Burke as a very interesting character. Katie Holmes proves that she can carry a film all on her own. Holmes usually turns in adequate performances in supporting roles such as in Wonder Boys and The Gift. In this film everything is on her shoulders and she comes out of it on top. A crucial scene during her job interview for the law firm is not just a statement of power for the character, but for Katie Holmes as well. The scene shows us that Katie Holmes is ready to play a WOMAN and is prepared to leave the fickle role of Dawson's Creek's Joey Potter behind. She carries herself so well during this film it makes you wonder what she can really do in a movie that has a better focus. Another asset that Katie brings to the role is a nice mix of naivety and sex appeal. Katie Holmes has a look of pure innocence but she carries herself with a sex appeal beyond her years. This works for the character during several key scenes. After Dawson Creek comes to an end this year Katie will be one of the few to have a flourishing movie career once the Creek dries up. The cast members should get in touch with her agent.

> Benjamin Bratt is stuck in a thankless supporting role that isn't much of a challenge for the actor. This is essentially the same part he played on Law & Order and in Miss Congeniality. I heard that he displayed a great deal of range in the critically acclaimed Pinero so maybe he should focus more on leading roles instead of throwaway supporting roles. I will say that I did buy the relationship between he and Katie that developed during the film. Some critics found it unbelievable but for this story I felt that it worked on a certain level.



Charlie Hunnam has a very difficult task of making Embry an interesting character. Since Embry is only shown through flashbacks and his few "return" encounters with Katie it must've been really hard for him convey the emotions necessary to make Embry the eccentric character that everyone describes him as. Hunnam is quite adequate in his few scenes. He does a good job of making Embry into a very spoiled and eccentric personality but there is something about this that hurts his character development. Half the flashbacks show him as a pampas asshole. The entire time they were trying to figure out if Embry just left town or if he was dead I really could care less. When a character is mostly unlikable it's very hard to care about what dastardly deed was committed against them.

Supporting performances from Gabrielle Union, and particularly Zooey Deschanel are quite good. Deschanel provides the film with much needed comic relief. When the film begins to lag she brings it back up with a very sharp delivery of some funny lines.

I guess the most disappointing thing about this film is that Stephen Gaghan's directorial debut is flawed, mainly because of his very own direction. There is a more compelling story to be told here and I think if he would've explored it more this film could've been much better. His script lays down the foundation for some great ideas but his direction doesn't allow them to shine through. He did some great work with the complex Traffic screenplay, creating interesting characters and interesting circumstances for them to fall back on. This is what makes this muddled effort a minor letdown. While watching a making of feature on the DVD I learned that he had never even picked up a camera to record anything as he was growing up. Maybe some more experience could've helped him as he was making this picture.



Technically the film is almost a masterpiece. The cinematography paints a very moody and effective atmosphere for the film. The cinematographer also did work on Requiem for a Dream and some of the brilliant work he did on that film is evident here. The use of beautifully lit backgrounds and scenery paint a perfect portrait for the flashback scenes and his use of dark blues and muddy greens provide set the mood for the darker themes of the story. For instance, there is a scene where Katie first sees Embry's return in a room that consists of a strobe light. The scene is so well done that it's one of the scenes that generates any tension. It's a scene that proves that atmosphere is key. The music, which was composed by another Requiem for a Dream team member, is also great. The score supplies a unique voice for the main character and almost serves as a way to get into her mind. There is a scene where Katie ventures back to Embry's country house for the first time since his disappearance and the scores soft yet moody use of the piano during this scene is enough to convey the emotions that the character is feeling.

I also was a bit hard on the film's ending when I first reviewed it but upon second viewing I think it actually works. It is a bit cliché but the acting throughout this sequence makes it bearable.

I recommend Abandon only if you're willing to accept the film for what it is: a character study that is light on the thrills. If you're going in expecting something that's going to keep you glued to your seat in fear then you may be disappointed.

B-

Marvel superheroes are hitting the big screen in waves. First there was blade which made a decent amount at the box office with its 70 + million dollar performance. 2000 brought us X-Men which became a box office hit when it opened with 54 million that summer. The sequel is on its way in 2003. Blade 2 was released in March and it opened with 33 million, an improvement from the 17-18 million the first one opened with. Thr Hulk is now in production with Eric Bana playing the Hulk and Oscar winner, Jennifer Connelly also starring. That film is directed by Ang Lee. After that Daredevil is set to be released and that film stars Ben Affleck, as Daredevil and Jennifer Gardner of Alias also starring. Until then however, we have Spider-Man and judging by the early weekend numbers(114 million opening weekend-highest opening of all time) it seems that people are loving this film. I can say that I more than loved it. I thought it was great.

Tobey Maguire takes on the role as Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man, a product of being bitten by a mutant spider while on a school field trip. He is in love with the girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Dunst; Bring it On) who is a kind sole but barely notices him. Peter lives with his Aunt May (Harris) and Uncle Ben (Robertson)(fans, like myself, of the comic will know why he's in this living situation). At first Parker is confused by his new skills but soon he begins to use them to his advantage.

Parker uses his new skills to fight in a wrestling match to get money for various things, one being a way to impress Mary Jane. After the match however tragedy strikes and Parker fully realizes that "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility" and through this "Spider-Man" is born.

Spidey's nemesis in the round is Norman Osborne (Dafoe; Shadow of the Vampire), a somewhat mad/determined scientist who needs to prove that his experiments work. After testing them on himself, something goes wrong and the Green Goblin is born.

I was quite surprised how much Tobey Maguire filled into the role; he not only makes it his own but manages to give it a little character behind the mask. He has that innocent, everyday man quality about him that makes you believe in him. It's a performance that has much more depth than you would expect, especially from a comic book movie.

The supporting cast takes a back seat to Spider-Man, lavish sets and ultimately some nice special effects, but they get the job done. Willem Dafoe has gotten back into my good graces after the atrocious Speed 2. He does a good job as the Green Goblin and doesn't overdo it. Now, it's not as memorable or great as Nicholson's Joker, but he makes a formable foe to Spider-Man. What I liked about his performance was that he didn't over-shadow the hero, much like the Joker did in Batman. Dafoe is given the right amount of screentime to establish his character but not too much to the point where it becomes a movie about him rather than Peter/Spider-Man

The other two notable cast mates are Kirsten Dunst and James Franco. Franco had actually gone in to the audition for the role of Peter Parker but ended up playing Harry Osborne, the villain's son. I liked Franco as Peter Parker's roommate and best friend and love the idea of the continuity aspect of the plot.(You'll see when you view the film)

Kirsten Dunst is even a good casting choice. What could've easily been an eye-candy role is taken to another level. She's very likable in the role and her chemistry with Maguire is natural and not forced.

This is good transition into the screenwriting by one of my favorites, David Koepp, who was the master behind films like Stir of Echoes and Panic Room. He brings Spider-Man to life with the help of Maguire and director Sam Raimi (A Simple Plan). The plot even over-shadows the great CGI in my opinion. The storyline is slightly more developed than most movies of this nature and is driven by its characters. I liked that aspect of the film very much.

Spider-Man also features some funny moments like a cameo by Bruce Campbell (of Evil Dead fame) as a Vince McMahon type ring master who gave Parker the name of "The Amazing Spider-Man" and Peter Parker having fun swinging from building to building. The J Jonah Jameson character is also very funny. He makes the transition from comic to screen very well. Dead on representation.

Spider-Man is the ultimate comic book movie that not only looks like it came from the comics, but adds in the sounds and some dialogue. From the opening credits to the last shot, you could see it in an issue of "Spider-Man". Like X-Men, the film is bright with colorful characters and big time action scenes. It reaches the level of my favorite comic book movie, Batman, and maybe after more viewings it could surpass it.

Overall, Spider-Man is a fun romp of comic book action. With a great story, acting, special effects, and a lot of heart Spider-Man is a perfect start to the summer season and i'm glad it's leading the pack.

I honestly wish they would've ended this series after the 4th installment, which was a pretty good note to end on. However, studios are money hungry in Hollywood, and they wanted to continue to cash in on the horror craze that was still in full swing in the 80's. In order to put some life into an aging series they decided to do something different with the 5th installment of this series. For the most part this works and in my opinon it works a hell of a lot better than the zombie jason featured in 6-10.

I honestly don't know why fans hate this entry so much. It's slightly and i do mean slightly more original than most of the sequels in the series and they had to do something fresh to make the series interesting again. This is an interesting shift and i appreciate the attempt to make something different.

In that aspect i appreciate the film and it's probably the last Friday the 13th film i liked for more than its making fun of it value. However, in the end this is more of the same. Bad acting, characters just in it to be killed, and the same stalk/chase scenes to be presented in all films of this sort. The only thing original about the film is the concept, and that's about it.

The only performance worth mentioning is the lead. His acting goes beyond that of a horror film. He should be in better movies, not in something like this. Other than this performance all the rest are just there for the kill and bring nothing interesting to there characters. The setting in the institution is a nice touch but it's handled so unrealisticly that it becomes hilarious to watch. Jason is a bit of a threat in this film only because the new direction the character takes in this film.

I appreciate this film for the new idea alone. I think the filmmakers knew what they had to do to make something after a 4th film called THE FINAL CHAPTER. The same slasher antics are used which prevent the film from becoming a really good horror film but it wasn't a bad way to waste 90 minutes, unlike the next sequels that followed it.

Halloween 2 was a nice try to follow up a slasher classic. I know that it was made because the first film made a nice amount of money but for some reason I can just tell they tried to keep it on par with the original. In some aspects they succeed but in the end we get a routine horror sequel. I guess it's unfair to expect so much out of it but when you're the follow up to a well made horror film it's pretty hard not to.

The main problem with this sequel is that it moves entirely too slow and the one location it stays in(the hospital) gets boring pretty fast. As Michael slowly stalks the halls we get the feeling that the film is also moving at the same pace.

Another problem is that it follows the slasher routine by adding characters that are just there to be victims for our killer. The characters in the first film were likable and were pretty developed, even if you knew they all wouldn't make it to the last frame. In this film we get total brain-dead characters who are just asking to be taken out by Myers. The only new character worth mentioning is the character of Jimmy played by Lance Guest. He gives a decent performance and is the only ne character added to the mix worth mentioning.

One issue that most Halloween fans debate about is whether or not The Shape, as he is commonly called, needed a backstory. I admit that in the first film is total lack of a motive made him much more frightening because it wasn't reason that was driving him to kill, it was just the fact that he was pure evil. In this film the reason he is after Laurie is revealed and it does kinda strip that aspect of the character and make him less scary. However, for story purposes for this sequel, it would be pretty hard to have a 90 minute film and not explain anything about its killer. For this film in particular i appreciate the fact that they added a method to his madness, it just brings down his fright level a few notches. At least the explanation is well-crafted and comes as some sort of a surprise.

A definite highlight of the film is that it picks up on the same night of the original. It added a level of suspense and consistency that made the story in the sequel much more interesting.

Donald Pleasance gets more screentime in this film and you can tell he is having fun with the role. He's quite good in this film and maintains the same dignity that made his character likable in the original. Jamie Lee Curtis gets less screentime in this film. She's still good in this film but more of her would've been appreciated. I also wish we could've seen more of the strong powerhouse that we saw in the original but she is still effective in her scenes. Michael Myers himself is given more screentime something i wish would not have been doen. He was a far more threatening presence when he was reduced to the shadows and the background throughout most of the original. More of him makes him less scary.

In the end it's a fairly good sequel to the original i just wish it could've stayed away from the 80's slasher mantality that made Friday the 13th so popular. However when the essence of the original shines through in this film you begin to think it's a cut above its many imitators

Some may be turned off by this film because it is the 7th installment of the Halloween series. However, the filmmakers of this feature seem to treat it as the third since they totally disregard 3-6. Too bad 4 had to be in that group of forgotten movies because it was actually quite good and better than this sequel in my opinion. The main highlight is that it takes place 20 years after the original and it brings back one of the greatest horror heroines to ever grace the screen, The original scream queen, Jamie Lee Curtis. Essentially this is a project made for her and in that aspect it totally works, however as a Halloween film it feels out of place. It seems to have picked up on the new millenium horror trend of adding hot teen actors into the mix and is basically shot like an episode of Dawson's Creek. Kevin Williamson even did some polishing on the script. In this aspect it doesn't work too well, but for the 7th installment in the series i guess it could've been worse.

As i said this is a showcase of Jamie Lee Curtis. It's very interesting to see how her character has changed in 20 years. Her performance is very good and is much more assertive than she was in the first 2 installments of the series. The problem is she is one oft he few characters worth any interest. Josh Hartnet as her son, and Michelle Williams as his love interest are the only 2 teen actors in the film worth mentioning. Josh Hartnet and Jamie Lee Curits share a very good mother/son chemistry that is vry effective in the film. Michelle Williams is more believeable than most potential teen slasher movie victims in her role. The rest of the cast is DOA. The supporting characters are vastly under-written. LL Cool J is funny in his scenes but they are too far and in between for him to become very interesting character. The other teen actors are just there to be slaughtered. The only oher interesting cast choice is Janet Leigh(shower victim from Psycho) in a Cameo. very cool to see mother and daughter together on screen. Michael Myers just isn't scary in this film. No because his presence is wearing thin because this is the 7th installment but because he isn't portrayed well by the actor/stuntman.

There are good things though that raise it above most of the sequels. The second half comes at you with full force. After a rather long set-up things move into high gear once Michael begins to wreck havoc. His showdown with Laurie is good but i wish it could've been longer. Another interesting thing this sequel does is gives us some closure. you'll see once you view the film. It's very rare that a series does this and it's very effective in this film.

I recommend this film based on the performance of Jamie Lee Curtis. If you want to see how she has been in the last 20 years than this is a film for you. Fans of the series should see this. I just worry that Halloween Ressurrection will ruin the semi-good note this film ended on, when it's released this summer. I hope to god they have a reason to bring Michael back for THE 8TH TIME. Evil never dies apparently and neither does this series even when it does have a fairly good finale.

The Halloween series has always been a mixed bag in my opinion. We have the pure greatness that is the original, then we get the decent, yet slow, second installment, and the dreadful stand alone third installment of the series. After the mistake that was the third feature of the series the filmmakers knew the only thing they could do to give the series some justice would be to bring Michael Myers back. I'm happy to say that in Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers he comes back with a vengeance.

The 4th installment, and some may disagree with me, is way better than Halloween 2. If any of the sequels comes close to matching the pace of the original it's this installment. The film follows the firs film's pace by adding more suspense than a high body count, unlike the second film, and manages to make Michael Myers scary again.

The aspect that works best about the film are its characters. Donald Pleasance returns as Dr. Loomis, adding a slightly more deranged/mad scientist vibe to his role. In this film he is consumed with stopping Micahel. A trend that would continue, with less success, in the 5th and 6th installment. Danielle Harris is added to the series as Michael's niece, Jamie. Danielle gives a truly amazing performance for someone of such a young age at the time. It's not an annoying child performance, but a captivating one. Ellie Cornell plays one of the few not so annoying teenagers in the Halloween series. Her portrayal of Rachel starts out like this however but soon transforms into a strong character who is determined to protect her sister. There are other spporting characters but they mostly are just there to add to a relatively low body count. Even Michael Myers is given some life as portrayed by George P. Wilbur. Some say he moved at a snailspace but i thought he was truly menancing and almost as effective as the Michael in the original film.

The stalk scens are also another highlight. A chase through a house and eventually onto a roof is a huge highlight of the film. The climatic battle on the truck is also worth mentioning.

Halloween 4 works better than most horror sequels. i just wish the trend couldn't last throughout the entire series. 5-6 most definitely killed the series when they were released. My advice jsut watch 1,2,4, and H20 to find out what the Halloween craze is all about.

When i first saw trailers for Oceans 11 i was amazed that they could get a cast like that into a film. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts and Matt Damon are among Hollywood's elite and the lesser known actors such as Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Scott Caan, and Casey Affleck have made big impressions in other films that they appeared in. Whenever big hollywood actors are in a movie i always want to see if they're actually making a good movie or if they're just putting them together to make a profit and a bad film. Then i heard that Steven Soderbiergh was directing. By that time i was hooked because he directed one of my favorite films; Traffic. After all that time of waiting last night was the night. Opening Night with about 12 of my friends and a semi-packed theatre. After viewing the film i have to say my verdict is......

WHAT A DAMN FUN, ENTERTAINING, and CLEVER FILM. Words can't describe how much i loved it. These actors weren't in it just to make a profit they were in it to make a memorable film. I don't want to give any of the plot away because it's just too good but i will tell you what i liked and some things i didn't like about the film.

What I Liked:

George Clooney and Brad Pitt are the embodiment of charisma. I'm a straight male but there is no denying that these guys possess a lot of style and charm. Not to mention talent. I've always enjoyed George Clooney as an actor and with each film he does he becomes an even better actor. i've always been a fan of Brad Pitt as well. He's just seems like an everyday guy in his films. Very natural and laid back. He's truly at home in this role.

The supporting cast is uniformily good. To see Julia Roberts in a supporting role was odd at first but even in the few scenes she's in you can't deny that the girl has talent. Her scenes with Clooney are priceless. The dialouge in these scenes are suitably sassy and snappy. Don Cheadle and Bernie Mac making a lasting impression as well. Don Cheadle is becoming one of my favorite actors and Mac is obviously on his way with this film and his own hit TV show. Matt Damon is good in his role and his chemistry with Clooney during the last act provides us with some truly entertaining and hilarious moments. Andy Garcia makes for a truly suave villian in the film. I haven't seen him in much lately which is quite a shame because he's a wonderful actor. Scott caan and Casey Affleck are a dynamic duo. They provide some of the most hilarious moments in the film and it's because of their off-beat chemistry.

Soderbergh is a wonderful filmmaker. He has an obvious love of films and this aids him in making good movies. He knows all the tricks of the trade and he uses them throughout the film. Subtle things are also down through the use of music. Images fly over a hip soundtrack that give the film an edge. This is especially certain during the final few scenes. Soderbergh is probably one of the best directors of our generation.

Vegas is a pretty interesting back-drop for everything that goes on. Vegas is basically another character in the film and through Soderbergh's work on the film he gives it a life of its own.

The final half of the film is outstanding. So much is going on yet the story flows at a nice pace so we know what is exactly going on.

What I didn't Like:

I tihnk i only disliked one thing about this film. Some of the dialouge was a bit cheesy but what film doesn't have that. My major gripe in the film was Julia's lack of screentime. She's good in the scenes that she's in but because her character isn't well developed you don't really care about her plight. If julia wasn't playing her however i don't know if any other actress could make you almost care with the screentime that she possesses.

It's rare that i dislike one thing about a film. Ocean's 11 has already made it's way into my top twenty and it's most definitely the best film i've seen this year. Very nice work

9/10

Urban Legends: Final Cut starts off on the right note just like the original. It doesn't have horror classic written all over it like the first one did when it began but it still starts off above average. However just like the orignal once the film begins to progress it slowly turns into another crappy slasher film.

The premise uses the whole movie within a movie tie in that is quite frankly getting a bit tired. Our new heroine is trying to win the prestigious Hitchcock Award for her new film which is about a serial killer who kills his victims based on Urban Legends. however once murders begin to happen on the set it becomes much harder to seperate fact from fiction.

What i Liked:

The heroine in this film is far more engaging than the one from the first film. She gives an honest performance and despite a tepid script she holds her own.

Very interesting to see Joey...no i mean Joseph Lawrence in this film. I joked about him being in it when i first heard about it but he was actually kinda good. In fact i wish he could've been in it more because he provides some pretty funny moments in the film.

i liked how it wasn't just a slasher film. During certain moments it played like a thriller and for at least the majority of the film the whodunit aspect is quite engaging.

i liked the use of seperating fact from fiction. That was a bit interesting. The scene where thry begin to watch Amy's reel and the killer switches it to the death he filmed was pretty intense.

What i didn't Like:

Where in the hell were the urban legend deaths. We got one and that was it. The one they has was pretty good but the film is called urban legend you would tihnk they would utilize that.

The last half of the film is even more ludicrious than the one in the first film. i found my self dumbfounded that they actually were allowed to produce the last half of this film. what a disappointed.

You can tell that we're running out of costumes for the killer to wear. The fencing mask and black apparel might seem frightening to some but all i kept thinking was the killer looks like a giant micro-phone.

The acting, with the exception of two people, is so painfully bad. My two year old brother could even act circles around these people.

This might not say much but at least this sequelis better than something like I Still Know What you did Last Summer. It barely sinks below the level of the original and i guess that says something. It's no film masterpiece but i tihnk fans of the first film may enjoy it.

5/10