Reviews

Christopher Nolan is fastly becoming one of my favorite directors. I've loved all of his movies so far and I've been eagerly awaiting his follow up to The Dark Knight since I came across the in-production page for this movie online, probably a year ago or more. Now after having just returned from the theater, I must say I was met with some mixed feelings about it. My feelings are certainly much more positive than they are negative. It is safe to say right off the bat that the movie was indeed very good. But I think it fell just slightly short of the hopes that I had for it.

Now maybe my expectations are set a little too high. It is perhaps unfair to expect any movie to be a perfect ten before you see it. But it's hard not to with many of the critics hailing this film as a masterpiece. I think with Inception, all of the pieces of a well above average, even excellent movie are there. An imaginative, very original concept, a well-written, believable, and deep script, good characters with good performances all around, adept directing, and exciting action scenes with breathtaking visual effects. I just personally feel that it's lacking a few ingredients to elevate it to the status of a true masterpiece.

So I'll start with the positives. Many parts of this movie are really quite brilliant. The storyline is extremely imaginative, and in much of the movie a treat to watch unfold on screen. I think that with one of Hollywood's biggest issues being derivative plot-lines and unoriginal ideas, this movie really stands out as a unique idea and an original film. Not only is the idea unique but it is also a deep plot-line. Sometimes it's a little hard to follow what's happening for a moment or two, but it's generally well executed in that I never felt completely lost for a significant amount of time.

the technical aspects of the film are top-notch. The action scenes are exciting and well directed, and the special effects are brilliant. Another excellent aspect of this movie that doesn't always show up quite as much in action movies anymore, due to the use of CGI, is some excellent stunt-work. The special effects work very well in this movie to give you a truly larger than life feel. Whether it's the greatest movie of all time or not, when you watch this film you know you are witnessing something much bigger than yourself.

The acting is also very good across the board. I am personally a huge fan of Leonardo Dicaprio, but I was disappointed by both of his last two films, so I was very happy to see him give an excellent performance in this legitimately awesome movie. His character is quite deep and has some monster-sized demons, and he plays it very convincingly. I also quite like most of the other actors in this movie, and I can honestly say everyone involved did a good job. I don't necessarily think any of it will be Oscar material, but they got into their characters well and were believable and entertaining.

All that being said, my main problem with this movie was the pacing. While being exciting and fun in many ways, the entire thing also seemed very heavy-handed. The script contained a lot of emotion, which in general is a good thing, but sometimes I felt that the emotion served to weigh it down rather than to bring the intensity of the movie up to that next level. It also felt too drag on a little too long near the ending. All of the scenes serve a purpose in the movie and perhaps are necessary to tell the story that Nolan was going for, but it seemed that there could have been some more effective way to arrange them to make the movie flow just a little more fluidly. It's hard to explain without giving anything away but let's just say there were a few scenes that I thought slowed the film down and distracted from the central plot-line.

The climactic final act of the movie is brilliantly layered in several ways, but sometimes the layers work against each other. The film involves multiple plot-lines, and at times it seemed to leave one plot behind for a while in favor of another. It's obvious that a lot of thought went into constructing this movie, almost like constructing an elaborate dream world, but ultimately I think the plot of the movie weighs itself down a little.

The TV spots for the film have been describing it as The Matrix meets James Bond. While I think the Matrix comparison is very accurate, I think it lacks a little bit of the overall cool-ness of James Bond in favor of a more heavy, emotional tone. Of course whether that's a good or a bad thing is subject to opinion. Another discrepancy I had about it is how to feel about one very specific, manipulative moment in the film but saying anything further on it involves a spoiler so I'll stop there.

Don't get me wrong. This is without a doubt one of, if not the, most imaginative and creative sci-fi action films since The Matrix. But I do not think that it is Christopher Nolan's masterpiece. There is a lot to praise here, but also room for improvement. I think it's a masterpiece concept that wasn't quite perfected. A little smoothing of the edges and adjustments to the pacing and it could have been a truly incredible film across the board. As it is, I still say it's a great ride that you won't want to miss. ********1/2- 8.5/10

I went into this movie really excited to a see a sweet action movie, and hoping that it would also deliver some of the tension and suspenseful build-up that made the first installment so strong. Well, I will say that while it had its moments of excitement, and was overall a fun movie, it fell pretty short of my hopes and expectations.

Despite my anticipation, I felt a negative reaction to this movie almost immediately when it started rolling. It's like I knew as soon as the title hit the screen that I was not going to enjoy this movie nearly as much as I expected. The reason is because the film has very little exposition, and what is there is a mess. Imagine if a couple of screenwriters get together, and come up with a very vague idea for a movie. They say "hey, let's take a handful of people, drop them into a jungle on a foreign planet, and then have them get attacked by aliens." Then instead of fleshing the story out and adding some depth, they start filming the movie right then and there, but not only that, they take that outline completely, one hundred percent literally. I won't put any spoilers but two minutes into the movie you will know exactly what I mean by that.

Now not every single movie has to have a ton of back-story to make it good, a simple premise like that can be scripted and shot effectively, but the point is that I did not care about these characters at all, and rather than being enticed by their dilemma, I found myself waiting impatiently for them to try to sort things out so that the action could start. On top of that, the characters and the script were both very cliché and not very interesting. I usually try my best to stay quiet during movies but I almost couldn't help making off-handed comments to break the monotony, and neither could some of the other viewers. One of my friends summed up my feelings at that moment pretty well when he said fairly loudly "This is going to be a long movie..."

As it turned out, it picked up a significant amount of momentum as the movie went on. Ninety percent of this movies problems come from the screen writing. The technical aspects are actually pretty solid. By that I mean it has enjoyable action sequences with pretty good special effects. I wouldn't exactly call it a top notch actioner, but it had a lot of exciting moments. At first it seemed like it was just going to be a lot of walking and arguing leapfrogged in between "RUN! SHOOT!" over and over again, but during the middle it built up some solid tension and suspense. It didn't quite have me on the edge of my seat like I hoped, but I can honestly say I did feel pulled into some of the scenes later on. It also has some satisfying violent moments for blood and gore lovers.

The other main flaw of the movie is that it mimics the first one a little too much, and not to as great of an effect. Despite some obvious differences, it seemed to follow a pretty similar formula, and while some of it was clearly meant to be viewed as homage, I saw a lot of it as a cop out.

My final verdict is that this movie is quite enjoyable visually, but it was clearly written with the intention of playing off of the original's success and Hollywood's clichés. The script is mostly laughable, but it has some well done moments. If you aren't very stingy with your money I would say it's worth seeing in the theater for the action elements, but if you prefer to be more selective with your movies I will recommend you pass this one up. *****----- 5/10

When Pixar released Toy Story in 1995, the first in the studio's remarkable line of superior animated movies, not to mention the first fully computer animated film to ever hit the silver screen, I was five years old. Roughly the same age as the film's character Andy, the fun-loving and imaginative owner of the toys we have all grown to love. Now, after a triumphant sequel and several other wonderful Pixar adventures, Andy is seventeen years old and on his way to college. I myself am now twenty, and heading towards my junior year of college. It suddenly struck me just how personal the Toy Story saga was to me when i was sitting in the theater watching Toy Story 3 this afternoon. Woody, Buzz, and all of their plastic pals have been with Andy for as long as he can remember, and I realized that they have been with me for as long as I can remember as well. Needless to say this movie needed that extra personal touch to really deliver, and let me tell you that it did not disappoint. It is clear that Woody, Buzz, and Andy mean just as much to the Pixar crew as they do to you and I, and while Pixar has had several other masterpieces, this one may just define the Toy Story Trilogy as their crowning achievement.

Like the first two films, Toy Story 3 pulls you into a world of pure imagination. The adventures these toys go on represent the fantasies of every five year old child. Ironically, it reminds us what it's truly like to be a kid again, even while the central conflict of the movie is the issue of growing up. And at the films core is a set of real life emotions and themes, touching strongly on the subjects of friendship, loyalty, and of course keeping that kid inside of you alive.

The script of the film is hilarious, filled with gut-busting scenes that may have you rolling on the floors with laughter. But of course, Pixar never lets its audiences slide through a movie without introducing an intense level of adversity, and this movie delivers a level of suspense and drama that any adult film fanatic should be able to appreciate. To top it all off, the ending of the movie brought me very near to tears.

Make no mistake, this is the film to see this summer. It's hilarious, exciting, adventurous, suspenseful, imaginative, heart-warming, and above all it reminds us never to let our imaginations die. 10/10

OK, the first thing that must be said about this movie is that yes, it is essentially the same exact premise as "Paranormal Activity." Therefore, it loses serious points in the originality category right from the start. It is unsettling to me that a filmmaker would make such a blatant copy of another film rather than trying to make something truly original but nevertheless, here we are with "Paranormal Entity." All that being said, I was surprised to find that this movie is actually good. Despite being upsettingly similar to "Paranormal Activity", it does set itself apart in certain subtle ways that make an interesting difference in the overall mood of the movie. The "real footage" gimmick is starting to get a little worn out, but it's used very effectively here.

While I think good film reviews in general should not compare films directly to another one, in this case I think it's safe to say that that's a little unavoidable, so I will say that next to "Paranormal Activity" this film almost comes out superior, originality issues aside. While I found the first version of this story to be a solid, suspenseful build-up to a satisfying pay-off, I felt that the "rip-off" was in fact more suspenseful throughout. While there were few actual scares, several of the scenes were incredibly tense. It did a very good job of putting me on the edge of my seat and getting my heart rate up from anticipation. I normally don't expect to be able to say this about such an unoriginal film, but I genuinely felt nervous about what was going to appear on the screen next during 2 or 3 of the scenes, which I have to admit is horror the way it should be.

Unfortunately it didn't quite pay off as well as "Paranormal Activity." The ending seemed rushed and while it was a bit unsettling, it didn't leave me feeling as tense as some of the scenes earlier on, and most certainly didn't leave me feeling terrified. The acting in the film is nothing Oscar-worthy but I found it to be adequate and mostly believable. There are a few continuity goofs that some may notice. I personally didn't find them to be terribly distracting, though they do suggest a bit of laziness by the filmmakers.

While some may feel that the obvious lack of originality should make this film completely dismissable, I feel that some of the content of this movie is indeed impressive and is worth checking out. Therefore, on a scale of good film-making i'm going to give this a fairly lenient 6/10. However, on the overall enjoyment scale I would give it an 8/10, and had this film been completely original and perhaps had a more exciting ending I would have given it a solid 8.5 or 9 out of 10 overall.

So in closing, it loses significant respect for obvious reasons but gains a little back in certain ways and is worth watching.

Director James Cameron's return to the world of science fiction cinema is a glorious one indeed. Twelve years after delivering us the highest grossing film of all time, Cameron brings us the sci-fi epic Avatar, a film that is not only visually breathtaking, but also character driven, emotional, exciting, effective, and masterfully directed.

The marketing and hype for this movie was mostly based around the groundbreaking visual effects, so I'll start there. I was lucky enough to get to see this film in a digital 3D theater. My only complaint is with myself, in that I wish I had seen a couple of 3D movies before this one. This was my first experience with a 3D film, so I really didn't have anything to compare it against, but all I knew from the very first shot of the movie was that this was going to be unlike anything I had ever seen before. At first it took me a while to adjust to the dimensions of the film, but after my eyes got used to what i was seeing, I realized that what I was looking at was not a 3D gimmick but a world with an incredible amount of depth. James Cameron rarely gets right in your face with the big things in this movie. He is more subtle than that. The things that appear to be directly in front of you (and they really do) are the little things that capture the ambiance of the scene and make you feel like you're there with the characters. The rest of the 3D effect serve to add dimensions and reality to the scenes.

The visual achievement in this film is not in the action scenes (which are some of the most exciting I've ever seen) but in the lengths that were gone to to bring this world to life. James Cameron has created a planet, a species, and a culture that work in perfect harmony with each other, and likewise the visuals are in perfect harmony. I'll admit I was a little apprehensive that this movie was more computer animated than live action. To me that usually suggests that a film crew is getting lazy, and that it's going to look like a video game. That is not at all the case here. The truth is that without computer animation there is no other way this film would have looked this impeccable. The planet of Pandora is extremely beautiful and detailed, and the Na'vi species fit with it perfectly. In all honesty, you can in fact tell that the aliens are computer animated. They still haven't quite attained the ability to make CG characters that look absolutely 100% unquestionably real, and in a live action world they might still have suffered the out-of-place look that many CG characters in movie get. However, in the computer animated world of Pandora, they blend in seamlessly and beautifully. This is of course not to downplay the design of the na'vi. They look as real as you could possibly hope for. The nearness they have come to looking real, the motion capture used in this movie, the range of facial expressions and emotions that they show, are all unprecedented.

All of that being said, the next big question about this movie is this: Are visual effects all it has to offer? My answer: Not at all. The depth of Avatar goes far beyond the visuals themselves.

As with all of Cameron's movies, Avatar is character driven. The central characters of the film are all dynamic, well written, and very well acted. You go on an adventure with them and throughout the movie you fall in love them (or grow to despise them depending on which characters).

The general plot-line of the movie is a bit generic but that's okay. No, the premise isn't anything completely brand new, but it's still an excellent plot, and one that is familiar to our society and very important for us to remember. Along with that there are still several aspects of the plot that are quite original. James Cameron took a familiar story, one that many storytellers before him have told version of, and made it his own. Furthermore, this is one of those movies where you predict things because you want to see them happen, and when your predictions turn out to come true it's gratifying. That's not to say that everything is predictable, because that would get old. Don't worry, Cameron has thrown in a fair amount of little surprises too.

This film is also as much emotionally effective as it is visually effective. James Cameron is a master at getting a certain emotion or feeling out of his viewers, and every scene in the movie works toward one or more of these effects. It's very light-hearted at times, with a good bit of comedic relief, and then quite intense in other scenes. Some scenes make you fear for the main characters, or perhaps even for yourself. Much of the film is brimming with anticipation and suspense, and several scenes had me simply grinning with excitement.

Overall this is one of the greatest cinematic experiences I've ever had. Avatar is groundbreaking, dynamic, powerful, and a ton of fun. I must say it was worth the wait, but I certainly hope Cameron is here to stay this time.

10/10

I had never heard of this film before today, but my father found it at goodwill for a dollar and bought it just to see if it was any good, and we just watched it a couple hours ago.

All in all I will say I enjoyed this film, but only after I realized that the plot-line would be very difficult to follow and I would be best-off just sitting back and enjoying the character interactions. That being said, I think I actually followed the majority of it but just barely.

The film was enjoyable because the characters are interesting and the acting is very good all-around. John Hannah put on a pretty good performance. Before tonight I had never seen him in anything other than The Mummy films, which I also quite enjoyed him in, and I must say I wish he was in more films. Very good character-acting from the other actors involved. I particularly enjoyed Eddie Izzard as the quirky yet tough bookie.

However, the film suffered a great deal in the plot-line. The plot was clever, yes, but it was much too convoluted. A lot of things flew by really quickly and even for a person used to complex plot-lines it was hard to follow. Not only that, but it didn't seem like there was much of a distinct plot-line to begin with it. It seemed like things were just happening, and then they all kinda fell together in the end. On top of that there were far too many twist. I got the feeling that the filmmakers really wanted to throw in a twist every five minutes. This kept you guessing but it served to give the viewers really no grip on what was going on at all.

The film would have done much better to lessen the amount of twists and turns, and establish a solid plot-line that the viewers could get a grip on, and let them think they actually know what's going on for a little while, and then start throwing in curve-balls. Of course, I am not the filmmaker, and who am I to tell them how to make their film? But that's just how I feel I would be better gripped by a film of this natur.

All that being said, this film really was enjoyable due to the acting and characters despite being quite mediocre plot wise. 6/10

In the golden age of cinema, year 1939, Frank Capra released his political masterpiece "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Starring James Stewart, Jean Arthur, and Claude Rains, it is a film about a naive young "Boy Ranger" leader (no doubt meant to be a reference to the Boy Scouts of American) with big dreams about American politics, history, and freedom, who is selected by the governor of his state to replace a deceased senator. Expecting a dream come true, he soon finds that he was only selected to be pawn for the powerful and corrupt "Taylor Machine" along with his fellow senator Joseph Paine. Rather than back down and follow orders, he decides to stay true to his ideals and stand up against corrupt politics.

This film is a landmark in cinema for several reasons. First of all, it was incredibly important too society. It was often frowned upon at the time because it was one of the first films, if not THE first, to paint a somewhat negative picture of American politicians, but it was also banned in several fascist and communist countries because of it's message of democracy, freedom, and the power of one. It was the last American film to be shown in France before the German occupation and no doubt gave hope to the country that freedom was on its way.

It is also a very inspiring film. Many claim that Frank Capra's work is all very unrealistic and corny. Several claim more specifically that in real life this film would not have ended the way it would. I disagree with that, but even so, there's not denying that this film is powerful. By the end of it, you feel very uplifted. It makes you believe in the power of your voice, the power of one man, and the importance of having high ideals.

It is also just overall an incredibly well-done film. Some of the transitions are very quick, but that just the time period, filmmakers at that time had yet to experiment with flashy camera work and creative transitions and such. Most definitely what was important about films in the 30's and 40's was the content much less than the camera work or the editing, and the content is fantastic. The film has an excellent screenplay, and lovable characters as well as some detestable ones. It's also very informative, containing somewhat of a lesson on the way the legislative system of our government works. but what stands high above everything else in this film is most definitely the acting.

James Stewart is absolutely brilliant as the young and naive, yet determined Jefferson Smith. When he gets to Washington he has every appearance of a little boy going to see his favorite baseball team play for the first time. In the first part of the film he's very passive and very vulnerable, but also very kind, but once he starts to stand up for himself, he exudes power with his performance, and you can see the transition completely.

Jean Arthur is adorable as the cynical yet sweet Saunders, and while the romance between her and Smith is a little underplayed, it's very captivating. Claude Raines also give a brilliant performance as Senator Joseph Paine. You can see the inner struggle of his character in his expressions and his delivery is impeccable. And Harry Carry's reactions as the President of the Senate are priceless. They're subtle but very amusing.

All in all this is a movie that true film buffs absolutely should not miss, as well as anyone who is interested in politics or would like a good lesson in acting.

Being a huge fan of Micheal Mann's previous bank-robber film Heat, as well as Johnny Depp and heist movies in general, I was very excited for this film. I must say in some ways I was quite satisfied, but in others I was disappointed.

All in all, it was an exciting film with exciting action, some very well done scenes, and great acting all-around, but it somewhat suffered in the plot and character development.

The movie's main character pretty much sums up the structure of this film about 20 minutes or so into it: "I'm John Dillinger, I rob banks." The film altogether is more or less that straight forward. Director Micheal Mann really doesn't beat around the bush. The film just kind of goes from one event to the next, without really a lot of build-up or development.

The action in the beginning of the movie is well directed but it moves by quickly, and doesn't really give you a lot of time to get into the scenes. However, as the film went on, I found I started to get into it much more. As John Dillinger's character started to unfold a little, I began to really get into Johnny Depp's performance. He does an excellent job as the cocky, straight-forward, cool-headed gangster. The other gangsters in his entourage are perhaps not given enough screen time or development but they are interesting characters and also well-acted, and Oscar winner Marion Coutillard is of course fantastic as Dillinger's love interest. This all begins to show more and more as the film goes on. On the other hand, Christian Bale's character as the federal agent on Dillinger's tale is a little bit dull. This may not be his fault, though, as much as the script's. His character really doesn't have a whole lot to work with but he does a good job with what he's given.

The middle section of the film also consists of some top-notch shootout sequences. While I had hoped for a little bit more suspense and build-up, one thing I was looking forward to in this film was a whole lot of guys blasting away at each other with tommy guns, and in that department in delivers. One thing Micheal Mann certainly knows how to direct is a good shoot-out, as well as a very good break-out scene. The action does start to lose momentum towards the end, but there are a lot of good dramatic moments throughout.

One thing that kind of bothered me about the film was camera work. Micheal Mann seems to use a lot of what appears to be hand-held camera, as well as a lot of very close-up shots, which in some scenes are effective, but often makes the film feel somewhat claustrophobic. I also don't feel that the period was used to it's fullest extent. This film is set in the depression era, which has a very distinctive atmosphere, which in turn has a very distinctive charm, which can often compliment a film. To me, that atmosphere and charm really didn't shine through as much as it should have. This is probably mostly due to the claustrophobic camera work. The characters are always the center of attention, never the setting. This has it's merits, as the characters are what move along the action of the film, but often times a setting is as much as a character as the people. In a depression-era film, you need to see the depression a little more distinctly. In a bank-heist film, the bank itself needs a little bit of extra attention. You rarely actually get a very good look at where you are, just who's there and what's going on. It works for moving along the plot, but it leaves you wanting just a little more.

All in all, this film was quite enjoyable, very well acted, and in many parts quite exciting and action-packed, but it should have been better and certainly will not be winning best picture. Still, I'm sure any fan of gangster movies or of Johnny Depp will enjoy it.

Director David Fincher entered the world of directing on the heels of one of the most classic American Sci-Fi franchises of all time, the Alien series. He followed James Cameron's classic "Aliens" with the not quite as critically acclaimed Alien 3. However, he has since shown us that he can indeed compete with the likes of Cameron and other A-list directors. He is most widely known for the immense cult classic "Fight Club" and Oscar monster "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", but his first stand-alone film after Alien 3 was the brilliant and classy crime thriller "Seven." This film proves that right from the start Fincher was a force to be reckoned with. This of course isn't to underplay the excellence of the screenwriter, Andrew Kevin Walker, or the intense and spine-tingling score by Howard Shore, or the excellent performances by all actors, including the actor who plays the killer (as the actor was kept under wraps during the marketing for this film, and isn't in the credits until the very end, i won't reveal who it is but it's one of my person favorites). This movie is a prime example of all elements of great film-making coming together to make something that is simply beautiful.

Probably the strongest element of this film is the way it unfolds. "Seven" is a master class in story-telling. The plot is handled with care and expertise. Fincher knows just the right times to be subtle, and make you really pay attention to catch everything, and then when to throw something directly in your face. While the film tells the story of probably one of the most sadistic and disturbing serial killers of all time, none of the killings are actually shown on screen. Instead, the film crew used other means of conveying the gruesome details, things like dialogue and pictures. It gives the characters a much better chance to drive the story forward, and it forces you to use your imagination which makes the more disturbing points all the more haunting.

While this film really is not an action movie, the small bit of action there is in the film is very exciting, and the dark, haunting nature of the film will leave a lasting impact on you for sure. This is helped along by Howard Shore's subtle yet fantastic score.

Seven is without a doubt one of the greatest murder mysteries ever filmed. It is a lesson in suspense and plot-development and a triumph for all involved in its making. Make no mistake, this is not a happy film, but it's a must-see for all true fans of good cinema.

As a huge fan of the book, I was really excited to see this movie. I read both this and The Da Vinci Code (which actually follows Angels & Demons) before the movie of The Da Vinci Code came out, and while the latter was the one that everyone was crazy about and was the really controversial one, I thought it was a disappointment compared to Angels & Demons, and while it was still a very good book, I wasn't all that impressed with the movie version, and I found myself thinking "I hope they make a movie of Angels & Demons, I bet that'll be a lot better." Well, looks like I got my wish! And I must say that while it inevitably did not QUITE live up to the book, I enjoyed it quite a bit more than The Da Vinci Code, and on its own I thought that, though not without its flaws, it was a very well done film.

I was very impressed with the introduction of the film. They did a good job of presenting the two sides of the story, Religion and then Science, and then pulling you into the story. After that, the movie slowed down for just a little bit. It basically followed the same pattern as the book, it introduced the story and characters, and for a while had quite a bit of plot development to really build up what was going on. This was the main part that I thought could have been done a little better in the film. Not that it was done badly. The plot was presented well, and it was definitely interesting, but I felt like it just lacked a little bit of that cinematic feeling, it's hard to say what they could have added to it to make it better but I just felt like they could have made the plot events punch a little harder.

However, the film doesn't drag for very long. Just like the book does, after the story is developed, it starts to pick up momentum very quickly and keeps you interested. I felt that they did a great job of giving you that suspenseful, time-is-running-out, race-against-the-clock feeling, the action is intense but not over the top, and the film stays tense and suspenseful until almost the very end.

The ending didn't quite have as powerful of an impact on me as it did in the book, but that may just be because i had already read it and already knew the story. Though I had pictured them doing it a little differently, it was still presented well, and one particular shot near the end I thought was quite spectacular (not gonna give away any spoilers though).

overall, other aspects of the movie were also quite solid. Good performances all-around (though probably none that will win any Oscars), great score from Hanz Zimmer, a few good chuckles of comedic relief here and there, etc.

All in all, though it has room for improvement and is not perfect by any means, this is a very entertaining, exciting and suspenseful film, and a very solid adaptation of the book. a few plot points where changed but otherwise it stays very true to the book and was very fun to see unfold on screen.

Quentin Tarantino's half of the double-feature "Grindhouse" is his sixth full-length feature film "Death Proof", a so-called exploitation flick about a stuntman who likes to terrorize women with his souped-up ride that he considers to be "death proof." As a huge Tarantino fan, I was very excited for this film, and while 8 stars is nothing to laugh at, I found it to be somewhat disappointing. However, this film is somewhat complicated to break down, and while overall I find it to be somewhat of a short-coming, it is definitely not without its merits.

Tarantino is notorious for his style of referencing older styles of film in his movies, and with this one, he kills two birds with one stone.

The film is made up of two distinct halves with a transition scene in between, each involving a different town and a separate set of women, both being terrorized by the central character, Stuntman Mike. In the first half, Tarantino pays homage to old cheesy 70's/80's horror films which usually involve young adults partying and then being stalked/terrorized by somebody or something, while part two of this flick references old gear-head racing movies like Gone in 60 Seconds and Vanishing Point. This in my opinion is the chief weakness of this movie. The 8/10 rating that I gave this film can sort of be seen as an average of a 10/10 rating I would give the first half of the movie, and a 6/10 that I would give the second half. These two distinct halves in my opinion severely hindered the momentum and purpose of the film, and the second half was far less intriguing than the first.

I personally wish that Tarantino had cut out the second half entirely, and made more out of the first. The first half of the movie builds up perfectly. Some may think it starts slow, because there's a lot of talking that goes on before anything really "happens", but this is how I like my movies. It builds up the characters very well, and the dialogue is interesting enough that it keeps you watching. It first introduces the girls, and then it introduces Stuntman Mike. It includes a couple of cheesy scenes that hint the girls are being stalked, a reference to those old horror movies, and then it introduces the character and builds up him as it continues to build up the the characters of the girls. Stuntman Mike is played excellently by Kurt Russel, and actor who I often think seems kind of cliché but in this role was very fun to watch. I particularly enjoyed his John Wayne impersonation. This half of the movie then culminates in a fantastic climax that I find to be the high point of the movie.

The movie then transitions into part two, and a major drop off. It introduces four more girl characters, and starts all over with the build-up. The dialogue here is still very good, and the characters are very interesting, but the scene isn't as well done as the first. I try not to include spoilers, but as it's mentioned on the box of the movie, i don't think it's a spoiler to say that this half builds up to and ends in a something like 14 minute car chase scene between the girls and stuntman mike that Tarantino was hoping would be one of the best car chase scenes of all time. I think that he missed the mark. The circumstances of the scene made it kind of intense but all in all it wasn't that special, and it honestly in my opinion ruined what the first half of the film started.

With the first half Tarantino had a brilliant, well-built, suspenseful horror film, and if he would have taken the climax of that scene, and made it more like the first big horrific part of the movie, and then kept going with that momentum and built up that story and drug it out more, I'm sure it would have been fantastic, but instead he ended it prematurely and inserted this disappointing and in my opinion failure of a second-half, the ending of which is particularly disappointing.

Part of the charm and brilliance of the first half was that you weren't sure where he was going with it. There were a few film-making jokes in there, like mistakes with the filming and strange cuts and some off-the-wall not-entirely-realistic comments that were made, and it makes you wonder if the whole thing is just a big gag, but when it gets to the point Tarantino shows you he means business. The scene is very serious, Kurt Russel is sadistic and scary, it's very intense and yes rather gruesome. However, the ending of the second half (and the whole movie itself) is almost farcical...it doesn't seem to be taking the film seriously anymore, and Kurt Russel has lost all of his scare factor.

To be fair, dialogue throughout, including the second half, is excellent. Some may find it tedious but I find Tarantino's dialogue to be a treat every time. The characters generally seem to talk as if they're real people. They get off on a lot of random tangents, but they build the characters and they add depth to the movie. the majority of my 8 stars to this film is contributed by that factor.

Overall because of an unnecessary transition and premature drop-off in quality, Death Proof missed the mark and had the potential to be so much more. This film is still more interesting and well done than most of the stuff that comes out these days but on a Tarantino scale it was below par. That does not mean however, that I would recommend passing the chance to see it. It's still a fun ride of a movie and is worth seeing even if just for the first half.

I personally went into this movie not expecting something as good as the first two X-Men films, but I had high hopes for a decent film, and had heard a lot of good things about it from my friends. Many of my friends said it was awesome, they wanted to see it twice, etc. etc., so i figured, even if it's just flashy special effects it must be worth seeing.

However, while I don't regret seeing it, I must say it did not even meet the expectations I had for it.

It was far from being a horrible film. It was still a fun movie to watch, as it is part of the X-Men world, the character of Wolverine is still an interesting character and well acted as always by Hugh Jackman, and some parts of the dialog and some of the action was well done, but that is also partly the main problem of the movie: the good parts are scattered, rather than continuous throughout the movie.

Most of the film's plot seemed to be put together very quickly and not very carefully. The plot seemed to move way too fast, without really develop anything properly, and the filmmakers did not get everything they could out of each scene of the movie. There is very little suspense or build-up to anything. Some of the little things in the film that should be paid more attention to, like Wolverine's claws for example, are not really presented in the movie with the care and creativity that they should be, and also many parts of the movie were not taken seriously. Several of the scenes in the film were farcical, which can be a good form of comedic relief, but with a character and plot-line as dark as wolverine and his past, it seemed a little ridiculous.

This film also seemed to be used as a vehicle to throw other x-men characters onto the screen, perhaps just so that they could say they did. Most of these characters are given very little screen time and barely developed at all, and should either have been justified with a bigger part in the movie, or left out entirely.

The action in the film was half a strong point and half another weakness. Some of the fight scenes were exciting and fun to watch, but some of the stunts were somewhat cheesy, and most of the action scenes could have been built up a little better. Still, the action scenes were pretty much what most of the movie-goers went to the film for, and they did make the film watchable at least.

As far as dialog, the film contained both good dialog points and catchy one-liners as well as many parts where the dialog was dull...they could have definitely put a little more time into writing the script of the film but again it wasn't horrible. Just not nearly as good as the first two X-Men films.

All in all, I gave the film six stars for being enjoyable and a decent popcorn flick, but Wolverine is a very deep, very dark character that deserved a more well-thought out (not to mention grittier) script and a much more careful and thorough director. I would say go ahead and see it in the theater if you have a little extra cash but don't spend your last 7 dollars on it.

This film, in my opinion, was not "Scary as Hell" as it said on the box. Instead, it was very subtle with the scares, yet creepy and suspenseful, and has you thinking (along with the characters) "what the hell is going on?" The film builds fairly slowly, but it's interesting. They set up the plot-line with some back story/myths about the blair witch, enough that you can figure out what's happening later on in the movie when you think back on it.

The actors, I felt, gave very good and believable performances, as tensions built up throughout the movie.

The movie culminates in a climax that is not terrifying, but is suspenseful and creepy, and leaves you with an overall movie experience that I would consider to be chilling.

This is not a movie that you will watch and say "That was so scary!" It is, rather, a movie that you might say "that wasn't that scary" upon finishing it, but you won't want to think about for very long after you turn out the lights and attempt to go to sleep. It is easy to watch but sets a very creepy mood and may make you wonder what's really outside your tent next time you go camping.

Overall I thought it was a pretty good movie. On one hand they could have made it a little scarier but on the other, had they made the scares less subtle it might have come off as cheesy or corny, and I'm pretty satisfied with the way it is. It's a fun movie to watch with your buddies when you're just hanging out and feel like watching a movie in the dark (it helps if you're sleeping in a camper as me and my friend were last night). I give it an 8/10.

The Dark Knight is without a doubt one of the coolest and most brilliant movies I have ever seen.

If you considered Batman Begins to be amazing, than you will find this film to be unbelievable.

Everything that made the first film a surprisingly fantastic super-hero movie is taken times 2 in this film, and then some.

The plot is very layered, like Batman Begins, but the themes are much deeper, it is much darker and more intense, and it feels very very epic.

It is still very suspenseful but the action scenes are slicker and more exciting than the first film.

Still, however, the main focus of the movie is not the action scenes but the characters, and oh how amazing the characters are.

Christian Bale is perfect as a Batman with a very deep and powerful inner struggle.

Aaron Eckhart is very good as a determined Harvey Dent who is putting everything (almost too much) into getting Gotham's criminals off the streets.

Gary Oldman is brilliant as Lt. Gordon. His character in The Dark Knight seems a little deeper than he was in Batman Begins and is more interesting in my opinion.

Micheal Caine is of course the perfect Alfred, always behind Batman with moral support and an interesting anecdote or two.

And then there's Heath Ledger, in a class of his own. The Joker, as seen in The Dark Knight, is by far one of the most intriguing (not to mention entertaining) villains every to be portrayed on film, and Heath was perfectly cast. The character was brilliantly scripted but even more brilliantly acted. Heath had everything down...the mannerisms, the voice, the quirky disposition, and some amazing dialog makes this a performance worth-remembering. The phrase "Oscar-worthy" comes to mind. I don't know if the academy has ever awarded an Oscar to someone who has already passed, or if they're even allowed to, but I think Heath at least deserves a nomination for this part, and it is a shame he isn't still around to keep bringing more magnificent characters to the silver screen. R. I. P.

But while the joker may steal the show, this movie is definitely about more than one character. It is a deep, layered, dark, twisted, action-packed and utterly brilliant crime film that you will not want to miss!

I was a fan of the first Hellboy but I always kind of understood why it wasn't considered a blockbuster. It was kind of cheesy and had room for improvement, but I still found it to be a very fun film with good special effects and action.

Well, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is certainly a notch or two above the first one. In fact, it was, in my opinion, about as good as action/adventure/fantasy movies get.

The plot was intriguing, the acting was very good, the makeup and sets were fantastic, the visuals were very impressive, it was well directed, and the action/fight scenes were very exciting and well done! Of course possibly most important of all is the characters. A couple of returning characters are given more dimension in this film, and the newly introduced characters are a great addition to the ensemble. Seth Macfarlane is fantastic as Johan Krauss, and I found the new villain to be a little deeper and more interesting than the villain from the first hellboy.

This is definitely a great summer film that action fans will not wanna miss!

Being as huge of a film buff as I am, i am greatly ashamed to admit that i've really never seen any of the true classics until tonight. I have seen a lot of the great films from the 70's on up, and a couple from the 60's, but I have always wished i could get my hands on some of the original classics like the Hitchcock movies, Citizen Kane, and of course, The Manchurian Candidate.

Well finally tonight I got to see it. I wasn't sure what to expect, I really don't mind black and white and i was certainly not so closed-minded to believe a movie would be unentertaining because it was old, but still i didn't know if I would think it was too cheesy or not.

But while there were a FEW cheesy, or perhaps too quickly edited scenes, the film overall was fantastic. The script was original and interesting, the filming styles were brilliant, and the acting, despite the couple of said cheesy parts, was incredible. I could say that i was very impressed with the leads, Sinatra and Harvey, but I would feel that i would be undermining the great performances of almost everyone else in the film.

The film kept me interested the whole time, the twists in the plot were well executed, I was truly affected by many of the scenes more than in quite a lot of more modern films i've seen.

Overall this was a fantastic film and I can see why it is considered a classic. I enjoyed watching it more than i could have expected and I will certainly be wanting to see more of these older films.

I just love this movie. Just like another review on here said, to me it his kind of close to home. I've never been too lucky with the ladies this movie just seemed very personal to me. and while some i guess thought they weren't that great of a pair, i honestly loved the interaction between the two main characters. this is one of those "i really wish that kind of thing would happen to me" and it's a movie that i really enjoy watching to kind of "escape" for a little bit. i also think it is just overall a pretty good movie despite it's incredibly low rating. i think the three roommate characters are quite amusing, it has a lot of funny quotes and plot events, and a lot of the drama is good too. overall this is just in my opinion a very entertaining movie and it has a somewhat unique effect on me and will always be one of my favorites.

Planet Terror is one of those movies that is every bit as satisfyingly awesome as can be expected. Many movies appear awesome, and then you watch them and even if they are still overall good movies, or even great movies, you find yourselves in some parts saying "well that was cool but i think it could have been better". Not this film. This movie delivered every bit of excitement and entertainment that the preview promised. I just simply cannot find anything bad to say about this movie. It was well acted, well scripted (though maybe not quite as excellent dialogue as Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof but that's not to be expected), well paced, and well shot. Had plenty of action, a little bit of slower parts for character and plot development but really no down time, and was creative and just overall completely 100% satisfying. Pretty much every scene had me saying to myself "this is awesome!" Not to say it is necessarily the greatest movie of all time but it is one heck of an entertaining film, with little or no serious flaws, that i'll certainly be watching again.

Saw in my opinion is an excellent suspense thriller/horror film. Many people pick it apart for several different reasons, and while i admit it may have it's flaws, i believe the important thing about a movie is the effect it has on you while watching it, rather than what you get when you pick apart every single little detail, and this particular film blew me away.

It's somewhat of a slow builder, but that's one of the things that makes it so good. It introduces the characters and keeps you interested in what's happening to them and how they interact with each other. You feel like you're there with them the whole time throughout their ordeal, and it makes you care about the characters.

Some of the scenes in this movie are truly suspenseful. One in particular will have you on the edge of your seat, not wanting to even breathe, and then even though you should be able to guess what happens at the end of the scene, it will still make you jump.

other scenes will make you laugh right before throwing in something completely unexpected.

and after all of the excellent, gripping build up, all hell finally breaks loose in the end, leading up to one of the best horror film endings i have ever seen.

This is an exciting movie that will get your heart racing, and i gave it a 10/10. i recommend everybody who's into psychological thrillers and who don't mind a little excess blood see this film.

Dane cook is, in my opinion, the funniest man on earth. I saw the unedited full hour version of stand up special and nearly wet my pants laughing! He started out almost fairly slow. the jokes in the beginning are definitely funny just cuz they're dane cook, but they're not necesarilly amazing. but then suddenly like 10 or 20 minutes in I suddenly started laughing so hard practically non-stop that it was starting to hurt! Dane Cook is an absolute comic genius. He knows exactly what's funny and what's not. In this special he often plays off things that make you go "that is so true" which is another reason he's great, you can easily relate to his comedy.

Anybody who enjoys laughter at all, pick up Harmful if Swallowed, and watch this comedy central special and listen to the cd. both are just absolutely hilarious.