Reviews

My Rating: *** out of ****

Slight Spoiler

It would be a hard task to remake John Carpenter's The Thing, which in itself was a remake of the 1950's film, The Thing From Another World. Carpenter's film remains the best of his career, a claustrophobic, paranoid little thriller that contained groundbreaking special effects. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's the equivalent of remaking Jaws or the Exorcist, but it's not too far off either.

The 2011 version of The Thing is not technically a remake, it's a prequel to Carpenter's film. Still, the story is virtually the same and, to this viewer, everything was stacked against this film. While there was some passing interest from me, my expectations were not high. It seemed like it was exactly the same from John Carpenter's film except that it would contain CGI and more modern effects. Still, I wanted to see it anyway just for comparison.

So, finally, how did it hold up? Surprisingly, it came through just fine. It's not an equal to Carpenter's film but it's certainly a better-than-average horror film, which is all you can ask for today. It does nothing to tarnish the reputation of Carpenter's film and doesn't seem like a carbon copy, even with it's many similarities.

There's no disputing that the story is virtually the same, except that you do learn more about the origin of the creature. One aspect I liked with this film is that you learn the alien cannot replicate inorganic materials, such as fillings and nose rings. This is an important tip throughout the film and will have you looking more closely at the characters.

One part of the film that you can't help but compare it to the original is the effects. A lot has changed in the 29 years since the last film and a decent amount of CGI is present here. It's, for the most part, tastefully done as the alien designs are very grotesque and mostly faithful to the original designs. It's a very gory film but not in excess. At times, the filmmakers are a little too showy but it's far from the problem it could've been.

In conclusion, The Thing is a worthy prequel to a near-masterpiece of horror. No, it's not a necessary film that had to be made but it pays its respect to Carpenter's film without duplicating it. That in itself makes it worth watching.

My Rating: ***1/2 out of ****.

Back in 1999, Eyes Wide Shut was one of the most anticipated films of the year, only the Phantom Menace was more anticipated. Being Stanley Kubrick's final film and starring then married couple Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman, there was good reason for it to be so anticipated. Critical reception was positive but underwhelming, critics mostly admired the film but few called it a masterpiece. Audience response was mixed to negative, Eyes Wide Shut was a modest box office success based solely on it's two stars.

The opinion of some of Kubrick's films have changed drastically over the years. 2001 and The Shining received mixed to negative responses when they first debuted, now both are viewed as seminal masterpieces in their genre. It'll be interesting how Eyes Wide Shut is viewed in another ten years, I'm not so sure how it's overall legacy has changed much in the twelve years since it debuted.

My opinion of Eyes Wide Shut on the first viewing was that it was an interesting failure. It had some memorable scenes and images but I just didn't see the point in the film. For the most part, it seemed like Kubrick was going through the motions and it was an underwhelming way to end a brilliant career.

To say my opinion has changed is an understatement. While I would not call Eyes Wide Shut a masterpiece, I will say it is a very worthy addition to Stanley Kubrick's oeuvre and a fitting conclusion to his career. When I watch it now I see a film with some very memorable scenes and rich images, but also a fascinating look at jealousy and sexual temptation. What wasn't apparent to me on the first viewing has become so on repeated ones. The gratuitous sex doesn't seem pointless anymore, it's there for a reason. Give Kubrick credit for making sex seem so unappealing and mechanical, he's making a statement about the human condition. Sex isn't about love in EWS, very little of the sex is an act of love here, it's about filling urges and temptations.

EWS has the same striking visual style as previous Kubrick films. The film has a dream-like atmosphere, which has lead some people to believe that much of what is transpiring on the screen is a dream through Tom Cruise's character. The most memorable scene is the sexual orgy, it's very Gothic with the black cloaks and the masks worn by the characters. This scene ranks up there with the most memorable imagery in Kubrick's films. Another memorable scene is Tom Cruise's character being stalked through the streets of New York.

On the first viewing, I was not crazy about Tom Cruise's performance, I would've described it as "wooden." While I don't view it as great work and there are few instances where the performance falls flat, I think it is a generally solid performance. Nicole Kidman, though she has lesser screen time, is consistently excellent, taking attention away from Cruise every time they're on screen together.

EWS is a complex film that's difficult to describe and hard to take in on a single viewing. This film needs to be watched more than once to be appreciated. Perhaps it's not for everyone, which describes most of Kubrick's films, but for the adventurous film watcher, EWS is a worthy film.

My Rating: **1/2 out of ****

Spoilers

As far as summer blockbusters go, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is adequate but underwhelming. While a big improvement over it's predecessor, Revenge of the Fallen, which was stupid even by director Michael Bay's standards, Dark of the Moon is no better than mediocre. There's a lot of flash here but for a film that's over two and a half hours you need more than that and Dark of the Moon is pretty hollow.

When the first Transformers came out it provided eye-popping special effects with spectacular, though at times a little hectic, actions scenes and it did present characters you could at least identify with and care about. It wasn't a deep film by any means but it didn't pretend to be. Unfortunately, spectacular visuals and action scenes with a dumb plot only worked for one film. The two sequels are ridiculously too long and the cuts are so fast during the action that you have no idea what's going on, and by the end you don't even care.

To be fair, Dark of the Moon is not a terrible film, it even has some merits. I really liked how Bay took a real historical event like the moon landing and injected the Transformers into it. I had reservations about this when I saw the first trailer but really it's done quite well and we even get a compelling reason why another man has not set foot on the moon in over forty years. This was also done in this Summer's far superior X-Men: First Class, which used the Cuban Missile Crisis. Also, it's interesting that Sentimel Prime, an Autobot, is the villain of the film. This makes the Decepticons no more than a foot note but it is at least an interesting approach.

For about 90 minutes, Dark of the Moon is entertaining enough. The visuals are still spectacular (never a problem with this franchise) and things move fairly quickly. I can honestly say I did not expect to see Sentinel Prime join with the Decepticons so that was a nice unexpected turn. However, there is still another hour to go and those 60 minutes feel like an eternity! The action isn't compelling and it's so drawn out that you're just aching to leave, but you spent $15 and want to stick it out to the bitter end.

One final complaint; I don't like 3-D. Michael Bay decided he would to do Dark of the Moon in 3-D and it was a mistake. It's hard on the eyes and does nothing to enhance the cinematic experience. Unfortunately, moviegoers are going to have to put up with this nuisance more and more in action films so we're stuck with it.

If all you're interested in is great visuals and some mindless action, give Transformers: Dark of the Moon a shot. It wasn't worth the $15 ticket, could've been an hour shorter, and better off without the 3-D, but while it maybe underwhelming it's not a terrible film. Still, if you're anybody but a die-hard Transformers fan I'd wait for DVD.

My rating: *** out of ****.

Spoilers! I will admit that I have not seen the original, "The Blob", the 50's film with Steve McQueen as the leading hero. I will admit I have no intention of seeing a cheesy "horror" film from the 50's, they just don't have much value for me. That being said, I admit to enjoying this 80's remake of the original, which I thought was a surprisingly entertaining B-film.

The story is pretty basic. A meteorite crash lands in the woods of a small California town. An old hermit discovers an oozing substance in the meteorite, which attaches itself to his hand. He is found by three teenagers and brought to a hospital to have the substance removed. However, the substance devours him and in turn grows bigger and becomes a big threat to the town. The film centers around two teenagers, Brian (Kevin Dillon), a loner with a spotty criminal record, and Meg (Shawnee Smith), a high school cheerleader. Meg's date is killed by the Blob at the hospital right after the old man dies and she then turns to Brian for answers. They both encounter government agents who storm the town and meet Dr. Meddows (Joe Seneca), who knows more about the Blob then he reveals.

The plot of the Blob sounds like your standard B-movie and that certainly would be an accurate description. Director Chuck Russell's resume is spotty with the enjoyable (Eraser, The Mask) and the unbearable (Bless The Child, The Scorpion King), but he knows how to handle the material here. The Blob is unpretentious and fun, it's exactly the right running time and perfectly paced. There's nothing complex about the film nor any hidden meaning, it's good, gory fun.

Speaking of gory, one has to mention the special effects. We see peoples faces dissolve in the Blob, arms being ripped off, and a man being sucked down a sink (my favorite). Another enjoyable scene is in the woods when a jock gets his date intoxicated and reaches down his dates shirt only to see the Blob has inhabited her body and leads to a bloody demise, it's a shocking scene and recalls John Carpenters The Thing, which came out only 6 years earlier. The Blob itself is a mixed bag, some scenes look great but then shots from a farther distance look fake. Overall, the special effects hold up pretty well though for a movie from 1988.

No one in the cast ever made the A-list, but I give credit to Dillon and Smith. On paper, they are playing types, Dillon your typical bad boy and Smith the pretty cheerleader. It is a credit to them that they actually make their characters likable and not seem like fodder for the Blob to chase after. Smith is beautiful and charming, Dillon shows charisma not unlike his more famous brother, Matt. The only other actor to make an impression is Del Close who plays Reverend Meeker, who sees the Blob as a sign of the apocalypse. Close chews the scenery a bit but presents an individual who is fairly creepy and truly believes the end of the world is near.

Pardon me if I reveal an important plot point but I liked how the Blob challenged authority figures, meaning our government. It is revealed that the Blob is actually a man made virus that went awry, it was created by the government for biological warfare with the Soviets as the film takes place during the end of the Cold War. This is nothing new in films from the 80's in particular, Ghostbusters certainly painted a not-so nice picture of the EPA, but it's still nice to see films show that government may not always be there to help.

I liked the Blob, it was an entertaining way to spend 90 minutes. At times, it recalled The Thing in certain scenes and in the special effects. No, don't get your hopes up, The Blob is not on the level with John Carpenter's near-masterpiece, it doesn't have the paranoid-cloaked atmosphere and the acting was superior. Still, I was pleasantly surprised by the film and would recommend it, especially now around Halloween.

My Rating: ** out of ****.

Maybe Spider-Man 3 is the product of huge expectations, maybe even unreasonably so, but it is a massive disappointment. Sam Raimi was crafting one of the better super hero franchises, the first one was solid and the second one was one was outstanding. The trailers for the third film showed promise and there was a ton of potential, hardly any of which was realized in the final product.

The biggest problem with the film was Sam Raimi was just attempting way too much with the storyline. Not only is the film about Peter and MJ's relationship, which is in full blown soap opera mode, but it's also about Peter's conflicts with Harry, Peter/Spider-Man's "dark side", which is introduced by some mysterious black goo from outer space, and two other villains are thrown in for good measure. Needless to say Spider-Man 3 is a bloated mess.

One of the trademarks of the previous two film were the quality of the villains. Willem Defoe was very effective as the Green Goblin and Alred Molina was outstanding as Doc Ock, both were menacing and, even if they had there complexities, you had no problem rooting against them. That is a problem here. If you're counting all the vaillains in the film there is three: Harry, Sandman, and Venom. The fight scenes between Peter/Spidey and Harry are energetic and some of the most effective in the film, but James Franco is not intimidating enough to be a good villain, and by the end of the film he is no longer a villain.

The other two villains are both failures for different reasons. Thomas Haden Church plays Sandman, who we learn was responsible for the death of Peter's Uncle Ben in the first films, and he ends up being the most sympathetic character in the film. Give credit to Church for making us feel for the character but that doesn't make him a very good villain. Sandman's name is Flint Marko and he shows to regret his past actions and wants to help his sick daughter. Not everything he does is right but it's hard to hate him.

The biggest failure is how Raimi just decides to trash Venom. Not only is Topher Grace seriously miscast as Eddie Brock/Venom but the character is unforgivably shortchanged. The character has only 20-30 minutes of screen time and Brock doesn't become Venom till the very end. This is one of the most popular villains in the comics and cartoons and the filmmakers hardly use him? I'm baffled by their apporach. At least you can say he looks good but there's no doubt Venom deserved to be a stand alone villain in another film.

The trailers showed that the film was going to focus on the dark side of Peter and Spider-Man. This potentially fascinating element is, with a few eceptions, executed poorly. The black goo that was previously mentioned attaches itself to Peter and changes his mood,appearance and creates a black Spidey suit. His appearance is ridiculously emo with black hair and an angsty facial expression. He also acts like a fool dancing on the streets, I know Raimi likes to add humor to these films but a lot of these scenes turn the film into a self-parody. This is supposed to be dark? More like ridiculous. The only time this works is when Peter fights Harry and the black Spidey encounters Sandman in the subway, but other than that, this element was a wasted opportunity.

Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are also disappointments. The chemistry isn't as strong here and both their performances are weaker. Dunst comes off as whiny and Maguire has several moments where is frighteningly awful. One scene that takes place on a bridge bewtween him and Dunst where he is expected to be emotional is painfully embarrassing. His performance doesn't ring true playing the darker side as well, though that's partly bad writing too.

In short, the film is just an all-round disappointment. The climactic action scene at the end even lacks the energy of the previous films. If Spider-Man 4 is going to come out in 2011, Sam Raimi better have a solid storyline that's not biting off more then he can chew or I'll be officially done with this franchise.

My Rating: **1/2 out of ****.

One thing you can say about Oliver Stones The Doors is that Stone has no intention of forcing the audience to like the main character. Stone spends almost the entire 138 minutes making Jim Morrison into the biggest asshole that he possibly can. Really, when I first rented this film I had no idea what to expect since Oliver Stone is sort of hit-or-miss with me. I can honestly say the film held my attention completely but at the end I was unsatisfied with what I had seen.

The remaining members of The Doors have criticized this film saying that it only portrayed one side of Morrison and that some of the actions in the film were far worse than anything he ever did (throwing the TV in the studio for instance). To be honest, I felt exactly the same way. By the end I was like, "There has to be more to this man than this!!!!"." I know Morrison had drinking and drug problems, and thats on full display. Stone makes clear that we see the flaws of Morrison and pretty much nothing else. If Stone wanted to make a film that showed the dark side of a rock star than he accomplished his goal admirably.

But the film is just too disappointingly shallow. Morrison was supposedly a very shy front-man at first which we actually do see in the beginning when he sings with his back turned toward the audience. It's a shame Stone didn't explore this "shy, intelligent" man that the Doors always talk about instead of the sadistic asshole on display here. If Stone had made Morrison into a more well-rounded character than this could have been a great film.

What cannot be criticized about the film is Val Kilmer's electrifying performance. Forget the small little flaws like Kilmer is six inches taller than Morrison was and that Kilmers face is a little fatter than Morrisons and just watch this magnificent piece of acting. I have never been that impressed with Val Kilmer's acting ability before I saw this film so seeing him in this was a mindblowing experience. He completely inhabits Morrison and its hard to believe he was actually the second choice for the role. This will undoubtedly be a career best for Kilmer and it is a damn shame he didn't at least get an Oscar Nomination.

The supporting cast is also impressive, particularly Meg Ryan. Ryan excels much more in lighter roles but here she dos a very good job as Morrison's girlfriend, Pamela Courson. Kevin Dillon, Kyle MacLachlan, and Frank Whaley do the best they can with limited screen time as the remaining members of The Doors.

Stone's films have always been uneven when it comes to visual styles. In such films as Natural Born Killers, Any Given Sunday, and to some extent, Nixon, they have been exercises of cinematic masturbation with hyper editing and completely unnecessary film stock switches. Fortunately, thats not the case here as the film has a more straightforward look that complements the film well instead of distracting us.

Stone can make a compelling film and The Doors is never boring. It has a lot of good points: a tremendous lead performance, impressive supporting work, effective cinematography, and a great soundtrack. Its a shame that the film is hampered by a shallow script. If the script were better it is quite possible The Doors could have been a great film. As it stands, its a compelling, though definitely disappointing film.

Rating: ** out of ****.

I thought I would redo my comments on this film since I recently watched it on TV recently. First of all, I can honestly admit that I have never been a fan of this film, even when I saw it when I was younger I never really cared for it. The problem is that this film is just too long and really just too stupid to really enjoy. That is not to say there isn't anything worth praising here but the negative significantly outweigh the positive.

First of all, I'll start with the film's good points. I like how they made Jessica Lange's character actually care about Kong instead of being disgusted by him. Honestly, I have never seen the original film (yet at least) but I heard the situation was just the opposite, Fay Wray's character hated Kong. So I will at least say that at the end when Kong dies, I did at least feel some sadness for him. Its interesting to note that in Peter Jackson's film he used this approach for the relationship between the Ape and the women, instead of the one in the original film. It's developed much more in Jackson's film than here but its always been one of the most interesting aspects of this film.

Then there's Kong himself. In this film, he's brought to life by make-up artist Rick Baker in a monkey suit. For the most part, I think it works pretty well. He doesn't look 100 percent convincing, since you can tell that those are not the eyes of a giant ape. Plus, there are times when Kong looks at Dwan (Jessica Langes character) and you can't help but feel thats the facial expression of a horny teenager instead of a big ape. However, I think Kong still holds up reasonably well.

What doesn't look convincing in the slightest is that big snake that Kong fights. How, even in 1976, would that look convincing? It looks so fake its funny and Kong actually struggles to beat it. Seriously, it is one of the most embarrassing effects I have ever seen in a film.

The acting does not really help matters either. The best of the bunch is Jeff Bridges, who actually does quite well here. The rest of the cast doesn't fair so well. Charles Grodin is embarrassingly over the top and its safe to say Jessica Lange had a less than stellar debut.To be fair, there are moments near the end of the film when she is good,when she tells Kong not to put her down or he'll be killed.

The script does not help either. It contains some of the most ridiculous lines I have ever heard in a film like when Dwan asks Kong, "Im a Libra, what sign are you." Then there's when she calls Kong a "Goddamn chauvinist pig ape." I guess you can't entirely blame Jessica Lange for the awfulness of her performances when she is given the worst lines of all the actors. What made the relationship in the new film special is that there were very few said at all, it was mostly all non-verbal. You could see the feelings in the facial expressions of the ape and the women.

That said, this film still has some impressive cinematography. The scene with the fog around the island lends an eerie atmosphere. Plus, the score by John Barry is top notch. Finally, Kongs first appearance is nicely handled. But when it comes down to it, the film is just too damn dumb to take for 134 minutes. There are some good things about this King Kong but Jackson's remake makes this one look insignificant by comparison. So the film can be occasionally fun to watch but it ends up being too much.

My rating: *** out of ****.

Open Water was being called the "Blair Witch" of last summer. In other words, it was a low-budget horror film that would scare the hell out of everyone and make a ton of money. Honestly, I found The Blair Witch Project to be hideously overrated. I thought it was just a really amateurish, cheaply made, badly acted and just not a very scary film. Thankfully, Open Water is vastly better than Blair Witch.

Open Water definitely has its problems. First of all, the film looks like it was made with little money (just $130,000). The first 15-20 minutes end up looking like some reality TV show, although actress Blanchard Ryan shows off her hugely impressive assets in this period. However, once the story moves to the ocean things improve immensely.

I have always found the ocean to be sort of frightening. No I do not avoid the water but I have wondered whats just below me when I'm swimming. This maybe why Open Water worked so well for me. The ocean can be a frightening place, especially when your in the middle of it with no one else around.

What I liked about Open Water a lot is that the sharks just didn't pursue them right. First, they have an encounter with a jellyfish and the sharks slowly enter the picture. When they do, you almost feel like your there with the people. I almost felt the terror they were going through because if I was in that situation, I would be so terrified. The director did a very impressive job of making us feel like we were with them.

Although it is a consistently suspenseful film, there are three scenes that I just found to be absolutely frightening. When the couple are swimming to find someone for help they see a bird land in the water then they see some splashes and the bird retreats to the air. They just stop completely and realize that the sharks are following. The second is when the couple decides to rest in the water and they wake hours later and realize that they have drifted apart, not knowing if the other had been ripped apart by the sharks. Finally, the scene during the thunderstorm when the sharks are circling just under them. That scene, in particular, was especially well done. The lightning plays a big role in this scene as its the only way of seeing how close the sharks are to them.

Although its well-directed and tense, Open Water is not perfect. The acting is kind of mixed. The male lead Daniel Travis gave an especially wooden performance as Daniel. Blanchard Ryan gives a solid, but not spectacular, performance as Susan, his fiancé I assume. She does seem a little raw at times, but, overall, its a good performance.

There also some issues in the screenplay. The dialogue is pretty banal, it all just sounds really routine as if I could have written the script on my own. Plus, it does take a fair amount of disbelief to believe that these two people would have been left behind like that. If I was on that boat, I would realize that someone like Susan was missing. Plus, I think the people in charge would realize they were still missing two tanks. That part did seem a little too contrived.

Problems aside, Open Water still worked pretty well. The ending didn't cop out, in fact its a really downbeat ending. If anything else had taken its place, I felt it would have been cheating. Overall, Id definitely say Open Water is worth seeing and its definitely far more than another "Blair Witch".

My Review: ** out of ****.

When I first saw previews for The Grudge, I thought it was going to be a Ring wannabe or at least along the lines of the Ring. I guess that is a reasonable thought since both were inspired by Japanese films and now being remade for the American audience. Unfortunately, when you compare the two films, The Ring clearly comes out on top.

Thats not to say there is not anything good about The Grudge but I have a feeling this was just put together to score off The Ring's success. The Grudge offers some creepy moments but nothing else beyond them. You can say what you want about how open-ended The Ring was and how much the plot did not make sense, but it had a much more solid plot than what is found in The Grudge. By the end of The Ring, I was intrigued by what was left unanswered but at the end of The Grudge, I was just confused.

Part of the reason, I was confused was because I just did not care what happened. The writer seemed to have no intention of creating characters for us to identify with. We have no sort of connection with them, they just seem to be here because you need people to kill off in a horror film.

The other reason is because of the quality of the acting. Sarah Michelle Gellar is as uninspired as an actress can get. Throughout the film she just seems to be going through the motions. The rest of the cast, which is made up of American and Asian actors, fails to make an impression.

Nevertheless, The Grudge does have some good points. The director of the film, Takashi Shimizu, was the director of the original and there is no doubt he gives the film a very stylish look. The eerie atmosphere fills every frame and there are quite a few moments where I jumped out of my seat. Nevertheless, some of those moments reminded me too closely of The Ring. There is one moment where a detective is watching the spirit on a surveillance tape and is walking towards the television. No doubt its creepy but I almost expected it to walk out of the TV. Also, even at those moments, it fails to measure up to The Ring's most memorable moments.

The Grudge is only worth a watch if you want a few good scare. At its very best, it is competent as a horror film. However, like I said before The Grudge seems to have only one purpose for being made. If the filmmakers had spent more time with story and characters, then The Grudge could have been a good horror film but as it stands, its just not worth your time.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

Don't get me wrong The Incredibles represents good entertainment but when I compare it to the Toy Story films and Finding Nemo(which gets better on subsequent viewings), it pales. I found the film entertaining but it just didn't pull me in like the previously mentioned Pixar films did. Nevertheless, The Incredibles has many good points.

Like every other Pixar film, the animation is stunning. Pixar has not done any backsliding here yet. The Incredibles looks just as great if not even more so than the other films. The locations vary from streets of a city, underwater, and on a tropical island. They all look equally impressive.

Two other strengths of The Incredibles are the action sequences and the humor. There is much more action here than any other Pixar film but the action scenes are thrilling and expertly done. The humor can be hilarious. The best jokes involve Mr. Incredible and his ultra-small car(at least for his size).

The vocal work is a little mixed. Craig T. Nelson does a solid job as Mr. Incredible. He makes him a larger-than-life character with enough human qualities to capture our sympathy. However, it takes too long for Holly Hunter to lose herself in the character. For a while, all I saw was an animated character with Hunter's voice, not Elastigirl. Samuel L. Jackson fares better but Jason Lee is no better than adequate as the villain. The actors who did the kids voice did a sub-par job. The kids were interminably annoying(especially Violet).

The Incredibles is also at least 15 minutes too long. It really starts to drag near the end and some trimming would have really helped out. Nevertheless, I do recommend the film. Those expecting a great film like the critics say it is, maybe disappointed but if you are expecting solid entertainment, then you won't be.

My Rating: **** out of ****.

Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill films can take their place as one of the best series in the history of film. Kill Bill Volume 1 and Volume 2 truly highlight(even more than his other films), how much he loves movies. These two films show his mastery of the medium. With these films, Tarantino is basically taking everything from the movies (or maybe the genres) he loves and mixing them together to form something fresh, which he has accomplished.

However, Tarantino's two films are radically different in tone. Volume 1 was a masterful kung-fu homage with some spaghetti western thrown in. That film showed that Tarantino was skillful in crafting action sequences and creating his most visually stunning film yet. It was a masterpiece and an instant classic.

Kill Bill Volume 2 is something different. Its mostly a spaghetti western with a little kung fu thrown in. While Tarantino shoots some great action sequences here, Volume 2 is not as concerned with action as its predecessor was. Instead, this film focuses on characters, dialogue and an emotional impact.

Out of all Tarantino's previous films, Volume 2 has more in common with the underrated Jackie Brown than Volume 1. Both films slowed their pace in order to develop their characters and both were going for a more emotional impact than any other of Tarantino's films. Volume 1's main purpose was to be a great thrill ride and give us a glimpse of things to come later on in the story.

Even though Volume 2 is more concerned with an emotional impact, it still has some thrilling scenes. There is a scene where The Bride is buried alive that is brilliantly filmed and as a result gives off a claustrophobic feel. We feel like were in the coffin with the bride. Also, the fight sequence between The Bride and Elle Driver is an exhilarating sequence. It may not quite be up to the final battle in Volume 1, but its damn close.

Another individual who deserves a lot of credit in making these films is Cinematographer Robert Richardson. Richardson's work on Volume 1 was just gorgeous and while is work here isn't as impressive, he still shines. The style is more subdued here but Richardson's camera-work during the Bride/Elle fight scene is terrific. He is also able to recapture the look of old kung fu films in one brilliant sequence (The Bride's training sequence with the treacherous Pei Mei). Richardson's work on these films is brilliant and he should get more credit.

Now we come to the emotional part of the film. The Brides quest is finally coming to the end. She is in Bills apartment about to shoot him when something unbelievably shocking is revealed to her: Her daughter that she believed was killed when she was shot is alive. the look on The Brides face is truly heartbreaking. The sequences with her and her daughter are touching. This is what she started killing for and now she has what she thought she lost four years ago.

Then there is the Bill/Bride situation. Oh I forgot to mention, she has a name: Beatrix Kiddo. The fight sequence at the end between them is more words than action. It isn't extremely satisfying on a visceral level but it is satisfying on an emotional level. These two no matter what they did to each other still cared about each other and a huge, epic battle would have cheapened their feelings for each other.

The acting is outstanding in all corners. Uma Thurman is just brilliant in this role. She shows the Bride was a more complex woman than we were lead to believe. Whether she does get an Oscar Nomination or not is in question, but she deserves it.

Michael Madsen turns in truly spectacular work too. This man is not some fodder for her to kill, his Budd is also more complex than I expected. Daryl Hannah is marvelous here. She plays against type as a cold, ruthless killer. Hannah removes all image of her nice girl roles here.

The standout is definitely David Carradine. Carradine is just sensational here. He opens Bill up, this is not some cartoonish figure with shallow motivations. He comes across as a real, deep person. Carradine deserves not only a nomination for his work, but the Oscar.

Kill Bill Volume 2 shows Tarantino at his best. His direction is flawless and he is back to writing dialogue. His dialogue here, while not "classic" Tarantino, is solidly written. Overall, Volume 2 is equally as accomplished as Volume 1 and these two together are a masterful saga.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

Secret Window is another one of those thrillers thats based on a Stephen King novel. However, unlike last years Dreamcatcher, this is an entertaining and well-made film. The film succeeds because of a superlative lead performance, tight direction, and an intelligent script. Secret Window is nowhere near the likes of The Shining or Shawshank Redemption(two excellent Stephen King adaptations although I have yet to read the books) but it gets the job done.

The difference between this film and last years Dreamcatcher is that Dreamcatcher dealt with extraterrestrials while Secret Window deals with nothing of the sort. Secret Window is similar to The Shining in that it deals with a man being isolated from the rest of the world and it eventually drives him mad. A competent director is needed to bring a claustrophobic feel to the film and David Koepp does not let us down.

In addition to developing a claustrophobic atmosphere, Koepp gets a brilliant performance from Johnny Depp. Depp has always guaranteed at least a solid performance in front of the camera but this has got to be one of the three best performances he has ever given. The only ones I can think of where he does a better job are his Oscar-Nominated turn in Pirates of the Caribbean and his masterful performance in Blow. Here, Depp gives an intense, riveting performance about a man isolated from the world. Although Koepp deserves credit for creating a sense of claustrophobia, Depp deserves some too. Without Depp's on-target performance, this film probably would not have worked as well.

Unfortunately, while the casting of Depp helps the film, the casting of John Turturro does not. I will admit that Turturro is a good comic actor and I admire him for trying to play against type but it just did not work. Turturro is so obviously miscast as this supposedly creepy individual. To be fair, there are instances where it seems like Turturro might have been able to handle the role but they are very few and brief.

The script helps the film though. This is an intelligently constructed thriller. There is a twist near the end but it fits perfectly in the film. In other words, it does not seem like a cheat. The script does not contain any horrendously bad dialogue and the lead character is well-developed.

Overall, Secret Window works. Its a solid thriller that may be the best thriller I have seen this year. While thats not saying a whole lot, Secret Window is definitely worth your time.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

Last year, A classic horror film called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was remade. Although it was not critically acclaimed, I thought it was a solid horror film and a damn good remake. The same could be said for this years Dawn of the Dead.

However, the remake of TCM could at least be called similar to the original. In the 2004 Dawn of the Dead, its like a complete reimagination. There almost different movies. Yes, the plot is basically the same but there's a lot different here too. For example, the zombies move much faster, it takes place in Wisconsin (not Pennsylvania), and the film plays out in a much different way. The setting of a shopping mall is the same but here its only used as a place to hide where in the original it was used George Romero's brilliant(if not very subtle) satire on consumerism.

So how does this Dawn fare against the older one? It holds up but it is inferior to the original. Romero's Dawn of the Dead was a horror film mixed with satire, this Dawn is more like action and horror. Thats not a bad thing because it works but Romero's Dawn was more challenging to a viewer. It was an intelligent horror film and while its not fair to call this film dumb, its nowhere near as intelligent as Romero's film was.

That being said, this Dawn does a few things better than the original. First of all the look of the zombies is far more scary, the make-up is more realistic, and in some ways, this is a scarier film. Also, the zombies move much faster here which adds more tension to the film. First-time director Zach Snyder does an excellent job of raising tension throughout the film.

However, you can tell this guy used to do music videos. Although this Dawn has a more polished, slicker look to it than the original did, there are times, especially in the beginning, when it looks a little too much like a music video. Is this a bad thing? Well it is a little distracting but it doesn't last too long (it looks much more like a movie in the mall).

The acting does not disappoint though. Everyone in the cast does a solid job portraying their character. If there's a problem here, its that I liked the characters in the original Dawn better. They seemed more accessible and likable to me. In this film some characters come across as really selfish or just plain stupid. For instance, would you risk going to save a dog in a building that is not only surrounded by zombies but has one in it? And not even have a weapon with you? I mean even though that moment was very suspenseful it fell back to the horror movie standard that a character must do something totally idiotic.

Also, what is the big deal with the ending of this film? All I heard was the ending is the most horrifying part of the film. Are you joking? I could see that coming so it wasn't shocking at all. The opening 10 minutes were far more effective. Another minor thing bothered me in this film and it was the use of the line "When there is no more room in hell the dead will walk the earth". As we all know this is from the original and once again delivered by Ken Foree. However, it didn't feel right here, it felt liked it was tacked on to make a reference to the original. It doesn't have the same impact either. Why? Because in the original Foree's character mentioned something about voodoo to go along with the line, here its just randomly said on television. How the hell is that creepy?

For the most part, this Dawn of the Dead delivered. It has flaws but it is tightly-paced, graphic and yes, scary. In my opinion, its much better than the overrated 28 Days Later. While it isn't on the same level as the original, it works on its own.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

I disagree with the reviewer saying that The Black Album is not a classic. I certainly think it is. It contains some of the best songwriting Metallica has ever done. Enter Sandman, Sad But True, The Unforgiven, Wherever I May Roam, Nothing Else Matters, and Of Wolf and Man. I also believe Holier Than Thou, Don't Tread on Me, The God That Failed, My Friend of Misery and The Struggle Within are underrated. The weakest song on the album is probably Through The Never but its still a great song. So yeah I completely disagree with you about The Black Album not being a classic.

What I do agree with you on is that its not the only Metallica album that deserves a DVD like this. I also agree with you that its not their best. Master of Puppets and ...And Justice For All are definitely superior. The songwriting is undeniably great on The Black Album but yeah it is superior on those two albums(Master of Puppets and One are my two favorite songs).

A case could be made that the Black Album is probably the most important album in Metallica's career. It is their most financially successful album and it gave them a ton of new fans. After The Black Album things were very much different for Metallica. They took a different step in their music and made the Load/Reload albums, probably the most criticized of all their albums (well maybe thats actually St. Anger but its close). For better or worse, The Black Album was a major turning point in their careers.

The DVD is definitely worth watching. I thought it gave a lot of interesting information about the songs. I enjoyed watching these guys talk about the album, I really just enjoy watching these guys. They are awesome. Lars Ulrich maybe a bit of a dick but he is hilarious. James Hetfield gives a lot of interesting background on some of the songs and he seems like a really cool guy. Kirk Hammett can certainly jam on the guitar. I liked that Jason Newstead got to talk about My Friend of Misery and to show off how talented he really is.

Overall, the DVD is worth watching and the album, in my opinion, is a must-have. The DVD maybe a little limited but it is interesting. I am really looking forward to the Some Kind of Monster documentary.

My Rating: ***1/2 out of ****.

If Nightmare on Elm Street only proves one thing it proves that Wes Craven is one of the best horror directors. I admit I haven't seen all of Craven's films but I have obviously seen Nightmare and I have seen the Scream films. While I think the Scream films are good in their own right (well Scream 3 was a bit of a letdown), Nightmare clearly shows his talent as a horror director.

Good Horror films are a rarity nowadays, Great ones are almost non-existent. Today, we get stuff like the overrated, pretentious 28 Days Later and the amateurish Blair Witch Project. Oh sure there have been good entries like the previously mentioned Scream films, the recent remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the Ring but horror films are usually the most ineffectively made films today. Nightmare on Elm Street is proof that a great horror film can still be made. It belongs in the company of Alien, The Exorcist, Halloween, and The Shining. If I had to be real critical, I think it's a small step below the second, third and a bigger step below the first and last one (since I consider Alien and The Shining to be the best horror films ever made, although Alien also belongs in Sci-Fi) but it clearly belongs in that exceptional group of films.

Nightmare is not a conventional horror film. This is not about a killer going around killing stupid people with an ax, knife, or machete. No, this film is about a killer that gets you in your dreams-or nightmares. Craven, who wrote the script, creates two worlds: one where your awake and a dream world. His script is intelligently constructed so that at times, we don't if one of the characters is awake or dreaming and that makes the film all the more thrilling.

Nightmare also has a unique style. Nightmare is a highly atmospheric film but contains some unusual sequences. When Nancy (the main character of the film) is trying to outrun Freddy (You ought to know who he is by now) her foot sinks into the steps like they are quicksand. There is also a chilling sequence where Nancy is pulled under bath water into a black pool.

The acting, while not extraordinary, is effective. Heather Langenkamp is solid as Nancy. She makes her into a more intelligent person than most protagonists in horror films and she definitely gets us on her side. Johnny Depp, in his first starring role, is also solid. Ronee Blakely is very effective in her somewhat limited role as Nancy's mother.

Robert Englund became famous after his first role as Freddy in Nightmare. Freddy is a pretty gross sight, he burns and bleeds green (the make-up job on englund is excellent). This really isn't much of an acting performance for Englund, but when Freddy speaks you can tell he has a vicious personality. This is no Michael or Jason, who don't say a damn thing. Freddy has more of a personality. He also has a backstory that is revealed enough to make us more afraid of him without spoiling anything.

Nightmare on Elm Street is Wes Craven at the top of his game. He generates a high amount of tension and delivers the thrill required for horror film. It's tough to say whether he'll top this effort but if he doesn't he can be proud of this brilliant horror film. Nightmare may not quite be perfect but its faults are minor and do not harmfully damage the film.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

Since it was released in theaters, Hannibal really hasn't been looked at favorably. It opened to mixed reviews from critics and much less audience approval. Well that was bound to happen since it was the follow up to the modern classic, Silence of the Lambs.

Regardless of popular opinion, I liked Hannibal. Yes, it's a small step below the slightly overrated Silence of the Lambs but it stands as a solid thriller. It has its flaws and there are areas in which it is vastly inferior to Silence but Hannibal stands effectively on its own.

Hannibal can be seen as the "dark and tragic romantic tale" that director Ridley Scott sees it as. I did sense a connection in Silence between the two characters and that connection was even more present here. But the romance can never happen since it's not a mutual thing. Clarice doesn't want anything to do with Lecter, but it's ironic in a way, because he understands her better than any other character in the film. The ending in a way shows what he would sacrifice for her.

Ridley Scott films are always notable for their visuals and Hannibal is no exception. Scott and Cinematographer John Mathieson have crafted a strikingly beautiful film. Hannibal is drenced with a dark atmosphere in nearly every frame. Also, the shots around Florence and North Carolina(Verger's Mansion) are gorgeous-looking.

The style and Ridley Scott's direction remain the biggest strengths in the film. They keep the weakest parts of Hannibal interesting. The weakest part of the film is an Italian detective named Pazzi's pursuit of Lecter. The problem here is that Pazzi really isn't an interesting character. He's a paper-thin character and the performance of Giancarlo Giannini is pretty uninspired.

Anthony Hopkins returns to arguably his greatest role ever. Once again he proves why he really is that great. His performance here is almost as brilliant as the one in Silence. Hannibal is still a creepy individual but he's a little more likable here. Hopkins should be given a lot of credit for making this happen.

Seeing Anthony Hopkins in his role makes it a little odd not seeing Jodie Foster in the role of Clarice Starling. No matter though. Julianne Moore is an effective replacement. Ten Years after the events in Silence, Clarice is more stressed out by her job. You can sense how tired she is in the movie. While Moore's performance isn't nearly as brilliant as Foster's was, she does a respectable job nonetheless.

There are a couple of meritable supporting performances. Gary Oldman gives an inspired performance as a man who wants to get revenge on Hannibal Lecter. There's a lot of make-up for the role (I had no clue it was him) but its Oldman's acting that allows him to disappear into the character. Ray Liotta is always good at playing unpleasant individuals so theres no surprise that he plays the part like an expert.

The most controversial scene in Hannibal is easily the ending. Most hate it and a lot of people think it ruined the film. I am conflicted about it myself. In a way, its a memorable ending (how could that not be memorable in some way) but it feels a little awkward. It's gross but it's also unique. I don't really know what it is, I am not even sure if it damages the film in anyway.

Like I said, Hannibal does have its flaws but it's an absorbing film. There were moments in the film where I was so riveted that I thought about rewarding the film a ***1/2. However, Hannibal fell just a little short but that doesn't change the fact that Hannibal is an entertaining, thrilling film.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

Not every film that has Quentin Tarantino's name on it is a masterpiece but each film he's been somehow involved in is at least of good quality(I'm not counting Natural Born Killers since he disowned the film). From Dusk Till Dawn is not an exception. For this film, Tarantino wrote the script but instead his good friend, Robert Rodriguez is in the directors chair. While this collaboration is not without weaknesses, these two talented filmmakers turn out solid entertainment.

From Dusk Till Dawn is actually not a story of Tarantino's. On the set of Reservoir Dogs, the make up artist for the film, Robert Kurtzman, told Tarantino that he would work for free if he turned a story(about vampires) he wrote into a film. So four years after Reservoir Dogs, From Dusk Till Dawn arrived in theaters.

Even though this is not Tarantino's story he puts his stamp on it (even if that means having a sizeable role in the film). The first half of the film is more dialogue than action. The dialogue that Tarantino penned for this film is not quite up to what he wrote for Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown but there's still some snap to it. The second half although more concentrated on action, still has some good lines ("Psychos do not explode when sun hits them. I don't care how crazy they are.").

The second half of the film is when director Robert Rodriguez gets to shine. Rodriguez has always had a talent for shooting action and that shows here. The over the top action is shot with flair and flawlessly edited (Rodriguez also handled the editing). Rodriguez never allows a dull moment in the entire movie.

If theres a major flaw in the film its that I found the film too gross. I know it is supposed to be that gross by intention but it was just a little too much for me. There's nothing wrong with the make-up work though, which is excellent.

This is not an actors film, but the performances work here. George Clooney is excellent here. He's given the best lines from Tarantino's script and deliver's them flawlessly. Tarantino himself is acceptable in his role. Effective work is provided by the rest of the cast.

From Dusk Till Dawn will probably not appeal to everybody. If you dislike gory films than you should probably avoid From Dusk Till Dawn. I enjoyed it as a bloody, stylish and not too serious piece of entertainment.

My Rating: **** out of ****.

As I said in my first review of Kill Bill Volume 1, I would write a second review after I saw Kill Bill Volume 2. When I reviewed it I said that I really enjoyed it, yet I had a few complaints about how Tarantino wanted to rip me off and that this was an incomplete film. I said that Volume 2 would have to fill in the holes for me to change my rating. Well Volume 2 filled in the holes and it did brilliantly. However, after seeing Volume 2 in the theater, I had the urge to buy Volume 1 on DVD. So I did and I finally watched it tonight. I must say after seeing Volume 2, it strengthens Volume 1 in an astonishing way.

Nevertheless, I would still like to see the films edited into a whole. Volume 1 is an exhilarating masterpiece on its own and Volume 2 brilliantly fills in the backstory, while adding an emotional resonance to the story. But together they might make a masterpiece to challenge Tarantino's top two films: Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. There is an advantage to cutting Kill Bill into two films, which has to do with the different tones of the films. However, I think Kill Bill could really shine as one film. We shall see when Tarantino decides to release the DVD.

Some people complain that Kill Bill doesn't have the great dialogue that was in Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and to some extent, Jackie Brown. Well it is true that this is not the brilliant, snappy dialogue that Tarantino penned in his other films but the dialogue here works. It's not the dialogue I delight in hearing in Dogs and Pulp but it fits here. I do not feel it is a flaw like some other reviewers have thought, I think it's an asset.

On the DVD, it is said that Tarantino and Uma Thurman came up with the idea for Kill Bill on the set of Pulp Fiction. Well you can definitely see that here. Volume 1 is their movie (maybe another reason for the split), more people get involved in Volume 2 (David Carradine, Daryl Hannah for example) but this is Tarantino's and Thurman's movie here. You clearly see that in the movie.

Uma Thurman dominates the screen like never before. She carries as much screen presence as any action star and shes got more than enough acting talent required for the role. Other actors in the film, such as Lucy Liu, Sonny Chiba, have supporting roles. From an acting standpoint, this is Thurman's movie and she makes that perfectly clear. Her performance in Volume 2 was the more accomplished one but she is terrific here. Thurman developed the Bride into more of a person in Volume 2; here she is more of an icon. However, that being said, I thought Thurman added some humanity to the role in Volume 1. She is a woman bent on revenge, but I did sense the Bride was a real person.

The rest of the cast offers their support. Lucy Liu is effective as O-Ren. Sonny Chiba should be given credit, he makes Hattori Hanzo into a memorable character for not much screentime. Vivica Fox does a good job in her limited screentime. Daryl Hannah makes a brief appearance and makes an impression. Michael Madsen and David Carradine show up in Volume 2.

This is also clearly Tarantino's film. Volume 1 is packed with style. Tarantino's stylistic techniques here are all creative and don't seem excessive. The slo-mo scene of O-Ren and her crew walking toward us is memorable. The split screen technique is used perfectly in one scene (a homage to Brian De Palma). The most unique technique Tarantino uses is an anime sequence to tell the backstory of O-Ren. The sequence is incredibly violent and beautiful in a deadly way. From a stylistic point of view, Volume 1 maybe Tarantino's most memorable film (although Volume 2 is certainly a contender).

However, it's the action scenes that prove that as a director Tarantino is in peak form. The smaller battle between The Bride and Vernita is handled well. But the showdown at the The House of Leaves is a tour de force. It's just an exhilarating fight scene that bests any fight scene I have seen in years. In fact, the only fight sequence I have seen recently that comes close was the fight between The Bride and Elle Driver in Volume 2.

The fight sequence between The Bride and O-Ren really deserves mention. It was a beautifully photographed and expertly handled scene. It was the most beautiful moment in any Tarantino film. I read a review of Tarantino's Jackie Brown that said Tarantino was not a great visuals director, well I bet they would change their mind after watching that scene. I also credit cinematographer Robert Richardson for making that scene look as great as it did (How he did not receive an Oscar nomination for cinematography, I will never know).

In the end, Kill Bill Volume 1 is just an exhilarating film that is technically brilliant in every area. It does not have much depth (more of that comes in Volume 2), but it's the kind of film that does not need to be incredibly deep. It's the director's work that is masterful here and the leading actress deserves a tremendous amount of credit too. With Kill Bill Volume 1, "Q and U" have given us a masterpiece and it is sure to be come a classic.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

White is the second film in Krzysztof's Kieslowski's Color Trilogy(The first is Blue; The third is Red). I have seen Blue and White, hopefully going to rent Red soon. Blue was a brilliant masterpiece about dealing with a loss in a woman's life. Unfortunately, White cannot be called Blue's equal. It lacks the punch of Blue and there are several possible reasons why.

First off, White has a much lighter tone than Blue. Blue had a somber mood to it, White has nothing of the sort. I guess you could call White the more enjoyable film but I did not find it anywhere near as absorbing as Blue.

Another flaw is the characters just aren't as interesting as Julie was from Blue. Maybe Kieslowski just has a way with Women that they command my attention better than the leading man does. In fact, I actually wanted the woman in the story to become the main character.

I am probably being too negative on the film, let me state that I think White is a good film. It's entertaining and will hold your attention through. It is also a very well-acted film.

The acting is definitely solid. His character may not be as interesting as Julie in Blue, but Zbigniew Zamachowski is quite good here. He's able to make his character likable and gets us on his side.

As good as Zamachowski is, it is Delpy who is the standout. Her performance is highly effective for having limited screentime. It makes me wonder that White would probably be better with her as the main character.

Like Blue, White has some breathtaking cinematography. The snowscapes in Poland are absolutely magnificent looking. The score is very impressive and supports the visuals well.

Overall, White is a well-made film that is definitely worth watching. The problem is that after Blue I was expecting a masterpiece. It is my problem. I do recommend White and acknowledge that it is a good film.

My Rating: **1/2 out of ****.

Out of all the movies coming out this month, this one looked the most promising. Van Helsing looked simply awful, Troy looked visually fantastic but the reviews weren't very promising, Shrek 2 didn't look terrible but I am not really compelled to see it either(the first Shrek never needed a sequel), and the comedies (Breakin all the Rules, Raising Helen) looked like crap. The Day After Tomorrow looked like it would be the most entertaining of them all.

If you've seen the preview, you know what to expect. Now see it on the big screen where it is an awesome sight. It's a huge big budget, disaster film that is typical for summer. For the most part, it entertains(at least when the cities are being destroyed).

The special effects in the film are highly impressive. The scenes of L.A. being destroyed by twisters and the flooding of New York City are exciting and look believable. Could you ask for anything more? Well yeah you could.

I am very surprised that director, Roland Emmerich (who brought us the very entertaining Independence Day) didn't do more. When this movie was being advertised I saw London frozen over and Sydney about to be flooded. Why weren't these in the film? I mean Emmerich showed the destruction of three cities in Independence Day. Why only two here?

The reason more cities should have been destroyed is because outside of the disaster sequences and some of the other action sequences, The Day After Tomorrow gives us some really clichéd and uninteresting drama. The doctor staying behind with the cancer patient(that's really corny and should have been cut). The film also shows us one of the most irritating and moronic Vice President I have ever seen in a film(Why does Emmerich always have to have a politician in his disaster films?).

There's also some really lame stuff here. The whole sequence with the wolves attacking on a Russian ship was just plain dumb and it wouldn't have hurt the film if it was cut. In fact, The Day After Tomorrow could have been shorter. Even at a reasonable length(124 minutes), it goes on for too long. Also, they need another closing shot because that last one of earth, though having a point, just comes off rather corny.

The Day After Tomorrow accomplishes what it sets out to do: entertain. Emmerich is a competent enough filmmaker to generate excitement, even though he can't create write worth a damn. There isn't much of a story here and the characters are mostly types(although some of the actors such as Jake Gyllenhaal and Emmy Rossum make their characters likable). Good disaster films need characters for us to care about (to a certain extent, Independence Day accomplished this), The Day After Tomorrow comes up short. Nevertheless, I had a pretty good time while watching the film. It's not something that will remain in your memory long, but it's fun while it lasts.

My Rating: *** out of ****.

When it came out there was no doubt that people would be disappointed by Jackie Brown, Quentin Tarantino's follow up to his masterpiece, Pulp Fiction. People thought by some miracle that Jackie Brown would be the masterpiece that Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction was. Sadly, it was not the case and Jackie Brown did not receive half the critical praise or the box office that Pulp did.

Unfortunately, while Jackie Brown is entertaining in its own right, has a brilliant performance by Samuel L. Jackson, and has some great lines of dialogue, it is not a masterpiece. The good news is that it is a good film and definitely worth watching. It was just unfortunate enough that it would be compared to Pulp Fiction.

The difference between this and Tarantino's other films is that this is an adaptation of the Elmore Leonard novel, Rum Punch. Admittedly, I have not read the book so I can't compare the two. Leonard is supposedly famous for the snappy dialogue he writes. Tarantino admits that he is somewhat influenced by Leonard. So its kind of hard to tell if the dialogue here is Tarantino's or if its Leonards but there are some great lines here. Theres actually a conversation that really stands out. Its a conversation about hiding in a trunk, whether this is Leonards or Tarantino's, its got classic written all over it. Unfortunately, while there are some great lines here, theres not nearly as much as there was in Pulp Fiction.

Samuel L. Jackson has always been one of my favorite actors. I have yet to see him turn in a bad performance. His work as Ordell Robbie ranks with the best I have seen from him. Its a compelling, mesmerizing performance that rivals his performance in Pulp Fiction as his best work.

No one in the cast matches Jackson's performance but they give solid support. Many people have said that the best performances given in the film were done by Pam Grier and Robert Forster. While I thought that both did solid jobs, I didn't find anything remarkable about their performances. Despite being somewhat underused, Robert De Niro gives an entertaining performance. Bridget Fonda is also well cast as a pothead.

Stylistically, this is a toned down Tarantino film. The film moves at a slower, deliberate pace. Tarantino does use a split-screen but only once and briefly. The most intriguing thing Tarantino does is show a crucial sequence in the film from three different perspectives. I am not exactly sure of the reason behind this but it was interesting.

Overall, Jackie Brown is an entertaing film that even though its not a masterpiece I would still like to see it again. I did think it could have used a little trimming towards the end but perhaps its because I saw it on TV and it was with all those damn commercials. I may review this film again after I watch it on DVD. So if I do feel different in anyway expect a changed review.