Dan Charrington's Movie Reviews

The Grudge (Nov. 09, 2004)

With the success of movies like "The Ring" and video games like the "Fatal Frame" and "Silent Hill" series, the Japanese have established their own unique style of presenting the horror genre. However, nobody is perfect... not even the Japanese. "The Grudge" steps up to try and take its place as the newest spooky hit that features a battered female ghost with long black hair, but it fails to live up to any standards that "The Ring" may or may not have set for horror movies. What sparked my curiosity to actually give this movie a shot was both it's lead female role (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and the fact that the film was rated PG13. I wanted to know how exactly a film that rated on par with any typical Adam Sandler movie and starred Buffy could possibly be "scary". It didn't take long into the watching before I got my answer: it's not. Relying entirly on jump scaring the audience, the film's ghost only needed to execute her first two kills within the first twenty minutes of the film before I could pinpoint each and every instance when I knew she'd show up again. And during the rest of the film between the parts where she was waiting in the shadows just off screen for her next chance to flash her evil eye at the audience, there is a dry and downright boring plot which follows Gellar's character Karen through the rigors of trying to piece together all the clues as to why this is all happening to her. While I found myself groaning through most of the scenes of this film, there were a few well used visual effects here and there. The use of sound effects was probably the films highlight, and although by the end of the movie it had become a flashing red warning signal that the long haired evil staring contest champion was about to strike, the creepy gurgling noise that she made as she moved around was very well used.
BOTTOM LINE: Take your girlfriend to see it if you want to see her yelp and jump and can't convince her to go see any other spooky movie. Beyond that, I honestly can't think of another reason why you would bother.

Saw (Nov. 02, 2004)

In the spirit of movies like "Seven", "Saw" is a juicy mix of graphic horror and psychological trickary. This is not a horror movie at all. There are no boogie men or spooky ghosts in this one. The badguy this time around is just a man, though he seems to lack any real humanity. Dubbed the Jiggsaw killer, this evil antagonist kiddnaps people and forces them into nightmarish situations, which is where we find our two main characters Adam (Leigh Whannel) and Lawrence (Cary Elwes) at the start of the film, both chained to the walls of a disease soaked bathroom. With only a pair of saws and instructions from their captor to make a decision of whether or not to kill the other to gain freedom, the story of how the two men are connected unfolds in a series of flashbacks. Mixed in with them are also scenes that show the aftermath of the Jigsaw killer's other crimes. Danny Glover makes an apperance as the detective assigned to investigate these strange events as well, though his role is second to most of the other characters. What struck me the most as I came out of this movie was how well the director used different styles of fear throughout the film. There were a few jump scares, but they weren't over-used by any means. The concepts that the killer comes up with to torture his victims were some of the most grizzly and well thought out ideas I've seen in a serial killer film. The movie isn't nearly as gore-filled as the previews may lead one to believe either, which I felt was another nice touch. My only beef with this movie would have to be with some of the actor's performances. I realize that acting scared can be tricky sometimes, but when you make a career out of it, I honestly think you should be a bit more convincing than some of the actors were in this movie. The soundtrack has mistakenly been said to be a nice mix of heavy metal and grunge music, featuring bands like Marilyn Manson, Nine Inch Nails and Fear Factory. While these are hardly what I would consider "heavy metal" bands, (Fear Factory excluded), the music that is used does fit well in the movie's context.
BOTTOM LINE: One of the best balances of jump fear, juicy splatterpunk and disturbing suspence I have seen in a while. An underdog of a scary movie in a time with very little hope left for the genre.

The Incredibles (Nov. 16, 2004)

Teaming up once again to bring an instant classic, Pixar animation studios and Walt Disney present "The Incredibles". Sitting down to this film, I was expecting it to be a heartwarming modern day fairytale like "Finding Nemo" or "A Bug's Life". Disney's latest animated movie delivered something a little more grown-up however. The film takes your modern nuclear family and swaps in a cast of superpowered members, each with their own unique abilities that tie in with their role in the family. Mr. Incredible, who stars as the main protagonist, is a combination of the Hulk and your average middle class workaholic who is always dreaming about his younger years. His wife Elastigirl spends much of the film being pulled in several directions at once while trying to remain the perfect mother and wife. Playing the role of the younger child and average hyperactive six year old is Rush, who speeds around the entire film at an incredible rate. His older sister Violete, the shy teenager who shuts out her parents, later in the film saves the entire family several times with her ability to create forcefields and invisibility. While the movie is light in tone and humorous at parts, the focus is moreso on the dynamics of family life then laughs, and each characters development and maturity is presented as a parallel to the adventures they each experience. And as always, good old Samuel L Jackson makes another appearance as the super cool hero Frozone, proving once and for all that the man is in fact trying to be in every movie every made.
BOTTOM LINE: Not as gut-bustingly funny as Shrek or Monster's Inc. but a definate winner for kids and their parents to watch together. See if you can figure out which of the main characters go through the same incredible challenges you do!

Seed Of Chucky (Nov. 30, 2004)

Often when a series of movies tries to sustain itself on countless sequals, it loses credibility fast. However, "Seed Of Chucky" takes a much more graceful approach to the passage of the Chucky movies from their prime. As the fifth movie starring the voice talent of Brad Dourif as the slasher doll Chucky, the filmtakes a comical stance by breaking the forth wall and bringing the characters of Chucky and his dollface wife Tiff (voiced by Jennifer Tilly) into the real world, where they find themselves in Hollywood on the set of actress hasbeen Jennifer Tilly (played by herself). Waiting for them is Glen, the forgotten memento concieved by the two dolls in the previous movie. Seeking his long lost parents, Glen revives them once again to bring his family back together. Meanwhile, Jennifer Tilly's real life career is mirrored by her in-movie real life, with the added spice of a few killer dolls on her tail. I had been a big fan of the Chucky movies from the early ninties, and although I consider "Bride Of Chucky" which was made several years later, no where near the caliber of the originals, I was still willing to give this film a chance. I am glad I did, because rather than once again beating a dead horse, the Chucky series has aged into a witty storyline that attacks itself for our amusment. Redman makes an appearance in the film as well... for whatever reason. Don't worry too much though, because you must know, as I did when I saw his name in the credits, that as the only black person billed, he's simply doomed.
BOTTOM LINE: The director of "Seed Of Chucky" knew where the series stood in the eyes of its fans, and rather than spit in their faces by dragging its credibility through more mud, he instead had it put on a funny mask and take one last bow before the curtain closed.

The Ring Two (March 26, 2005)

Not too many people like the 2002 release of the remake of the Japanese horror hit, "Ringu" entitled "The Ring"--at least not in North America. The biggest criticism I have heard from most people was that they didn't understand it and thus didn't get the fear from it. Now, I will admit that when it comes to movies, there isn't really anything scary left out there to make. All we can expect is more shock-scare filled "Scream" rip-offs and Romero inspired zombie movies. "The Ring" was one of the few movies that rekindled my hope for the horror movie genre, and "The Ring Two" did a good job of snuffing out that hope once and for all. For those of you who haven't seen the sequel, I envy you. The film picks up X months after the first as we follow the two main survivors, Rachael and Aidan Keller in their quest to seek a quiet and peaceful life in a small town. We also learn of the continued circulation of the killer tape that carries the curse of Samara, the ragged long haired ghost that hunts her audience seven days after they watch the tape. Early in the film Rachael finds out that the waterlogged specter is out for revenge and seeks to possess her son Aidan in order to get it. Unfortunately, this plot line is dragged through a series of painstakingly longwinded suspense scenes that all end with dissapointing jump scares. Rachael embarks on another Sherlock Homes style investigation into Samara's past that bounces from one silly clue to the next and never really reveals anything in the end. The final confrontation (and there are several) includes one of the only saving graces in the entire movie in the form of a visually creepy race between Rachael and Samara to climb out of the well. Beyond that, the rest of the movie is a mish-mash of confusing imagery and boring dialog. The actors do put their best foot forward, but unfortunatly decent acting can never make up for bad writing. The actual ending of the film is way more user-friendly than the first movie and will be a nice bottle for all the babies who didn't get the ending to "The Ring".
BOTTOM LINE: "The Ring Two" is the exact same story as "The Ring", only less scary, more Hollywood influenced, and wrapped in a happier, emptier ending. It's the movie equivalent to Final Fantasy X-2: an apology from the makers to all the people who didn't like how the first one turned out.

Sin City (April 20th, 2005)

With the slew of second rate comic-to-movie adaptations that Marvel has been churning out, it's a wonder more and more people haven't caught on and realized that comic books have their own format that simply can't be translated to movies that well. Luckily director Robert Rodriguez realized that it would be stupid to try and change one of his favorite series of comic books: Frank Miller's "Sin City", in order to bring it to the silver screen. Instead he simply copied Miller's graphic novels down to the exact detail in cinematic form, bringing the stories to life in all their grizzly glory. I knew nothing about Miller's work or about the Sin City universe going into the movie, but I was still blown away by it. I remember coming out from the theater not only impressed by the technical achievements the film managed to pull off, but also floored by the dark yet sinisterly wicked stories and dialogs that Miller came up with. The cast is littered with big names and familiar faces, from Bruce Willis (playing his typical hardened old cop role) to Mickey Rourke playing the rough and tough street fighter Marv, a character that I for one think everyone wishes they could be just like. Jessica Alba stars as the main eye candy of the film, though I found myself more drawn to the duel Kill Bill sword wielding samurai valkyrie chick Miho in all honesty. As for Benicio Del Toro, what can I say? Johnny Depp had to have been their first choice for a character that inevitably ends up as a severed head, but he makes a good second. So what can you expect from "Sin City"? A gritty underground universe; a great deal of insightful dialog and interior monologs; and a whole lot of killing and blood. The successful emulation of Miller's comic book style is a testament to the director's awesome cinematographic skills, and the actors all put their best feet forward.
BOTTOM LINE: This has to be the first time a comic book has been successfully been adapted to the big screen. This movie has everything: cops and robbers, grunt brawlers, sexy warrior women, nazis, ninja wolf boys, corrupt politicians, hit men, talking dead men and yellow bastards. Check it out if you want some juicy, stylish entertainment.

Unleashed (May 14th, 2005)

Like Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee before him, Jet Li has gone from martial arts superstardom to Hollywood hit, becoming on of the hardest hitting Asian stars here in North America. Normally Li dawns the role of some highly trained special agent or masterful kung fu powerhouse in his Hollywood roles, but in his latest project "Unleashed" Li takes on the role of a savage yet innocent slave, rather than a cold and collected professional. Li's character Danny has been raised as a brutal gladiator by a British mobster named Bart (Bob Hoskins) who uses him to bully his way into riches and power. Having received no formal education and treated as a mere animal, Danny retains a childlike intellect and unleashes his killer instinct only when Bart removes his collar. While Jet Li's grace and mastery of martial arts is well known, I was knocked off my feet by how well he can also play the devastatingly savage brawler. Danny doesn't just beat guys up in this movie--he pummels them to an inch of their lives, and I was impressed by how Li goes from being a monstrously insane fighter to an innocent, child-like soul. An old blind piano player and his stepdaughter rescue Danny later in the film after he becomes separated from Bart in an utterly random car crash. Since most successful blind piano players are African-American, I guess it only makes sense that Morgan Freeman gets the role as Sam, the kindly old man that only sees Danny's child like side. He and his stepdaughter nurture Danny's innocence and give him the home and family he's always wanted, until Bart comes back around looking for his moneymaker. Danny isn't interested in fighting anymore, so he puts his vicious strength to use to defend his new family. The tail end of the film has a lot of beat-em-up action, including a token one-on-one battle between Li and some unknown, unexplained, seven foot tall, bald Caucasian, dressed in white fighting expert that comes the closest to actually beating him before getting knocked out a window four stories down onto the top of Bart's car. Corny? Well sure, but at least there isn't a tone of wire-fu or any buildings being knocked down due to collateral damage. My only real issue was that Danny's road to recovery, which we are to believe is from a tortured slave with the mind of a child to a healthy, somewhat naive yet compassionate young man, all seems to go by way too fast both in screen time and elapsed time for it to be believable. That aside, this is definitely a role that I was impressed to see Li pull off.
BOTTOM LINE: You can't go to a movie with Jet Li in the credits and not expect some fists to fly. However, it's not often we see a martial arts expert take on a role like Danny, who demands more than just moves and might. "Unleashed" is a fresh coat of paint for an actor that can clearly do more than just hurt people.

Star Wars : Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith (May 31st, 2005)

So at last we come full circle to the supposedly climactic ending of the first three episodes in Lucas' lifelong project. First of all, don't let its box office records fool you. Relying entirely on the previous five movies for its audience, "Revenge Of The Sith" takes the let's-get-this-over-with approach to story telling. But hey, at least it looks cool. I like to think that I walked into this movie the way everyone should: with no expectations. From experiencing the first two episodes, it's more than obvious that if you are expecting any kind of award winning performances, deep and thought provoking plot developments, or memorable moments... you'd better head back to the original three movies. This movie is all about overwhelmingly overdone CG settings and scenes, loose ends being tied up, and numerous flashy saber battles. Now, I'm not saying any of these things are bad, however like the first two episodes, "Revenge Of The Sith" is nowhere near the degree of the aged and classic original series. It suffers once again from a hammy love story, a rushed conclusion, and what has to be the single worst "NOOOOOO" scene ever recorded on film. Also, while it's no secret that Lucas is a fan of wipe transitions for the films, I honestly think he went overboard with the things in this one. It doesn't help that each scene averages at about five to seven minutes before leaping somewhere else in the story. I can appreciate speedy pacing, but this isn't supposed to be a music video. The last twenty minutes of the film serve as a reminder of how exactly this series ties in with the one we grew up with as kids, by showing each character going their separate ways and heading to their waiting place for the whole story to pick up again in episode four. As for the actors, I'm pretty sure most of them were more or less tired of playing the same roles, along with the same dialog and character ranges, for the second or third (or in some cases fourth or sixth) time. You can tell just by their shallow performances that most of them have had enough. All that aside, let us not forget that we are dealing with a Star Wars movie. There's always room for saber fights, gun battles, and ship to ship combat, and "Revenge Of The Sith" has more than enough of those to keep you from walking out of the theater. The series has really gotten an MTV makeover in the last 20 years as well. No more final saber battles in a wussy Emperor chamber. Nope, now we have to have the climactic battle of Jedi and Sith on hovering platforms each resting a foot over a river of lava. Oh well... it's Star Wars. And besides, the kids will love it.
BOTTOM LINE: You've come this far, so you might as well see just fill in that small gap, even if you already know what's going to happen. Stick around for the shiney parts too.

Batman Begins (June 21st, 2005)

It is about time the Batman series finally decided to stop fiddling around with ridiculously stupid bad guys and tired repetitive stories that revolve around them wanting to destroy Gotham City and focused on the one character that the series should focus on: the man in black! The caped crusader! I feel no shame in my opinion that Christian Bale has played the best Batman to date. I mean the character is supposed to be the "Dark Knight" isn't he? Micheal Keaton was admirable in the first film, but Kilmer and Clooney were just plain bad, playing up the character as some wise-ass shmuck with too many high tech toys. Bale's Batman is actually scary however! And his Bruce Wayne is believable too. The film doesn't try to fit seamlessly into the rest of the series plot wise, but it is done well enough that you won't care. The plot is deeper than any of the previous movies and the acting is perfect. Michael Caine executes the role of Alfred effortlessly, playing as Bruce's temporary sidekick and comic relief through the majority of the film. Liam Nelson and Cillian Murphy both play very detestable villains. Even Morgan Freeman's typical "Morgan Freeman" character fits in nicely with the rest of the cast. Katie Holmes probably plays the weakest link as the fleeting love interest for Bruce, whom he doesn't end up with at the close of the movie in accordance with all comic book super hero lore, despite saving her life several times. The early parts of the film show Bruce off in distant, eastern lands learning ninjitsu and all the skills and training it will take to be the hero of justice. Later, after
"graduating" from his teachings, he returns to his home to find the terrible depression he left it in only worsening under the tyrannical grip of the overwhelming street crime and corrupted bureaucacies. Using his childhood memories as a guide, Bruce dawns the visage of his greatest fear in order to hunt the wicked elements of his city. Gotham is given a facelift in the latest movie as well, making it look more like Midgar with all it's slums and crime soaked streets. The film overall is very dark. Heavily contrasting shadows litter every scene and the theme of fear is interwoven through the whole story. The action scenes are credible though the tight camera shots and fast editing take away a little bit from the supposed climactic martial arts scenes at the end. With all this in mind, let us not forget that Batman isn't not without his witty one liners either, which are spread out well throughout the film and do a good job in keeping Batman from being "too evil" when he doesn't need to be.
BOTTOM LINE: "Batman Begins" would have been a seriously awesome movie even if it wasn't about a kick ass hero in a black costume. Christian Bale brings out the darkness in the "Dark Knight" that has never been seen before, but has long been thirsted for.

The Longest Yard (June 28th, 2005)

There are countless numbers of films spawned from Saturday Night Live alumni entertainers, and the remake of the 1974 film "The Longest Yard" sits in with them nicely as one of the most entertaining films done by "Tommy Boy" director Peter Segal. Adam Sandler isn't an actor I would consider very good at playing any role other than the "Adam Sandler" role, but fortunately the character of Paul Crewe, a football superstar has-been that heads a team of convict football players, is a very "Adam Sandler"-ish part. The same goes for Chris Rock and Burt Reynolds' characters. The "team" is a mishmash of colourful characters that just seem like a common prison population at first, but after a while you'll fall in love with each of their unique charms, as well as with the way Sandler interacts with them. In a fashion not unlike the "Major League" movies, the team starts off just shy of useless and utterly chaotic and transforms under Crewe's leadership into a gang of sinisterly rough and tough underdogs. The prison guards, a team of Texas cowboys, stand in their way and strive to undermined their efforts at every turn, along with the despicable warden who uses his corrupted influences to ensure a victory for his guards and make him look far better to the public. I will admit that I wasn't expecting to be totally blown away by an oscar award winning epic when I walked into this one. The film doesn't pretend to be anything its not. It's just simply entertaining. If you like Adam Sandler and his sometimes off-colour but good spirited on-screen antics, you won't be disapointed. If you like meeting a cast of unusually charming characters, like a eight foot tall tattooed giant who enjoys ping-pong and hitting his head on the wall, or a three hundred pound muscle man who likes colouring books and apologizes when he breaks the tackle bag, then you won't be disapointed. If you like seeing some over the top football hits, kicks, and takedowns, you won't be disapointed. If you have a craving for checking out some male cheerleader action and can't wait to see Rob Schnider deliver yet another " You Can Do It" line... you're a sick individual, but you still won't be disappointed. The movie is relatively well paced, given its two hour time span. The soundtrack is rap heavy, but then what did you expect with Nelly in the credits?
BOTTOM LINE: This is not "The Shawshank Redemption" nor is it a superbowl on film. All you can expect from "The Longest Yard" is a steady stream of laughs, some heavy hits, and a generally entertaining experience.

War Of The Worlds (July 5th, 2005)

Was he looking to top "Independence Day" or was he just interested in working with Tom Cruise again after "Minority Report"? Whatever the reason, Steven Spielberg has brought the classic H.G Wells sci-fi story "War Of The Worlds" to the big screen. If one were to rate a film purely on visual sensationalism, this movie gets a ten out of ten. No question. The movie is loaded with CG shots, and unlike Lucas, Spielberg can actually make a motherload of special effect shots actually look as realistic as anyone could hope to think they could be. Cruise is the main character and the whole story follows him exclusively, but he does not have the key role, by far. This is a story about an alien invasion mixed in with a few finger-shaking ideals about the moral savagery and malevolent nature of humanity. You'll see a lot of apocalyptic scenes of the world being destroyed as well as the occasional suspense scene reminiscent of the "Jurassic Park" T-Rex and raptor scenes. The acting is overall good, though I was more impressed with Dakota Fannings character than Tom Cruise's. We all know pretty much how a panicked father would act, but seeing how a child would behave during a global crisis was far more interesting in my opinion. There is also the rebellious teenager character thrown in there, but we lose him half way through the film, so don't worry too much. As for the aliens, well they certainly look alien. You won't see too much of them, but just picture your typical black-eyed, bulbous headed, most un-Homo sapien shaped life forms with scaly skin and you're pretty much safe. Their ships are pretty impressive too, and they really do a great job of wrecking everything. Spielberg has never had a problem with destroying a lot of property and buildings and killing a lot of humans on screen in the past, so why would he hit the breaks now? I was kind of disappointed to see the fleeing victims explode into a cloud of dust when they got zapped, rather than actually seeing some decent spaghetti shots. I mean, if you are going to show the aliens spraying the landscape in human blood later in the film, why tone it down during the initial attack? Oh well. It still looks very impressive on the screen, and some of the quieter moments that place the camera behind a character as they survey a ruined landscape or a river filled with corpses are quite breathtaking, if somewhat overused.
BOTTOM LINE: Take that, humanity! "War Of The Worlds" does a great job of pumping some adrenaline filled CG blood into a classic story, even if the actual storytelling suffers a bit from it.

Land Of The Dead (July 13th, 2005)

Certain names in cinema summon genres, characters, plots and other names to the mind. Lucas & light sabers, Brad Dourif & Chucky, and of course Jet Li and Russell Crowe & fighting. Nothing, however, fits together like A1 sauce and prime rib than the legendary filmmaker George Romero and zombie movies. Stepping into the spotlight once again for the first time in near twenty years, the man behind the classic "...of the Dead" series of movies has marched his army of wandering cannibals back onto the main screen for his fourth written and directed ghoul-fest: "Land Of The Dead". Set in an undisclosed time period after the events of a previous zombie holocaust, we find humanity bunkered up in dystopian clusters of wrecked former civilizations, the wealthy and powerful high in the few skyscrapers still standing while the remaining survivors adapt to a broken life down on the electric-fenced streets. Outside, the zombies roam the country still in search of meals, but Romero decided to give them a new weapon in order to stir things up: primal thinking abilities. I've always loved Romero's old school zombie movies. Films like "28 Days Later" and the remake of Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead" were admirable, but I've never really been a fan of running zombies. So what does a twenty-year-old splatterpunk master have to offer us hip, 21-century youngsters? Well I have to tell you, despite how bold Hollywood may have become with war movies and digital effects, Romero still holds the title for putting the juiciest, squishiest, most bowel loosening straight up blood and guts on the screen for everyone to enjoy. He does a nice job of throwing together a decent story to keep things from just being "let's get away from the zombies" too, but when you boil it right down, a zombie movie is just that. Get away from the things! The movie isn't scary save a few jump scares here and there (another timeless zombie staple). It's just really disgusting at some points, which is fine. You'll never find a better context for disgusting to flourish. I was also happy to see John Leguizamo as one of the lead roles. I've always liked him and he has a pretty diverse character arc throughout the film too, from the hotheaded cowboy hunter turned terrorist who sees the errors of his ways but pays the price later by switching sides to the zombie team just in time to take down the "real" asshole character of the movie. He goes through a lot!
BOTTOM LINE: A good zombie movie is like a good steak: juicy and rare. Romero has always served up only the best in the past, and "Land Of The Dead" is quite the fresh cut of meat!

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (July 17th, 2005)

The original movie based on Roald Dahl's book, "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory" was considered a very unique and psychedelic film, with Gene Wilder leading a stellar cast as the infamous chocolatier Willy Wonka. Twenty-four years later, in this the age of endless remakes, a new Willy Wonka has invited a new group of five children to his factory for an amazing tour in the newest film by the master of surreal filmmaking, Tim Burton. Several names were slated to fill Wonka's role, including Jim Carry, Robin Williams, and even Marylin Manson, but in the end, the dynamic duo of Johnny Depp and Tim Burton won out. Depp did, however, model his portrayal of Willy after the shock rocker Manson, dawning pale makeup and sporting a twitchy attitude. Much like the original movie, the title is somewhat misleading. As the first film was centred around the little boy Charlie and his journey through the magnificent factory while the title had "Willy Wonka" in it, Tim Burton put Charlie in the title this time around, however the film is more centred on the candy master Wonka, complete with an entire family history sub-plot exclusive to the film. Most people looked at me funny when I said I was going to see this movie, but in all honesty, it is good for a laugh. Depp carries the film the majority of the way with his peppy banter and utterly bizarre factory antics. The four kids that follow Charlie into the factory are all prime examples of spoiled, rudely behaved and generally poorly raised children who all get their just desserts as they trudge through the factory. The tour kind of follows a reptetitive pattern. The group finds a room with some kind of wacky invention, and one of the bad kids decides to mess around with something they aren't suppose to. The army of oompa-loompas that run the factory, all played by a single actor, all do a song and dance routine for each child that is lost and every lesson that is learned from their errors, and the group moves on. As for the factory itself, well... if you've ever seen a Tim Burton movie, you'll know what to expect. Danny Elfman does the music too, which if you've ever seen a Tim Burton movie is also no real shocker. Despite what you might think, the digital effects are not overused in this movie either. They are there, but Burton has always leaned more towards building real sets, however twisted and unrealistic they may be, or however much real chocolate and candy they may be made out of.
BOTTOM LINE: "Charlie And The Chocolate Factory" is more a family movie than a children's movie, though parents may not "get it" as much as their kids do. Regardless, it is one heck of a sugar rush.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (July 27th, 2005)

There are jokes out there that only people who fall into the target audience will truly "get", like blonde jokes, redneck jokes, and of course, marriage jokes. Nevertheless, "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" is fantastically entertaining even for those of us, like myself, who have been single a long time. I walked into this movie expecting only a charming little story with some violence and humour thrown on top for seasoning. What I got instead was a laugh riot. Brad Pitt proved he could be funny in "Ocean's Eleven" but this time around he's just downright hilarious, in a charming almost boyish fashion. And Angelina Jolie? What can I say? She's hot! I liked her "Jane Smith" character in this a lot better than any of her "Lara Croft" characters, even though it boils down to a beautiful woman with guns either way. She comes off as a tad bit more believable in this movie though. So it is true that both actors shine brilliantly in their own respects, but what gives "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" its definitive spark is the chemistry the two share. All of their scenes and dialogs together are acted out flawlessly, whether they be trading uncomfortable silences near the beginning of the film, or gunfire later on. They do kiss and make up (and then some) in the last few scenes in order to focus on the greater good, but they never lose their sharp tonge-in-cheek exchanges with each other, which anyone who has progressed through an extended relationship will appreciate. There is a lot of what I like to call "silent humour" in the film as well. This is the kind of stuff "Men In Black" was famous for. One of the biggest laughs the movie got from myself and the rest of the audience in the theatre was from seeing the Smiths dive into an elevator after dodging heavy gunfire, and simply waiting for the lift to reach its destination while the cheesy music plays. This goes on for a solid minute, you must understand, and everyone sitting around me was just howling. Another additional cast member thrown in for some laughs is Vince Vaughn, who plays as John Smith's guy buddy. He's a bit eccentric for a best friend, but nevertheless he fulfills the role well and provides John with all the advice and ammunition he needs when he needs it the most.
BOTTOM LINE: If all marital problems manifested themselves the same way they do for "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", the world would be a much healthier, livelier and more active place for couples to be. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are the perfect couple, both as husband and wife, and as mark and assassin!

Stealth (August 3rd, 2005)

If you think yourself too high and mighty to admit you don't occasionally mind seeing a mindless action ride filled with explosions, high sky dog fights, and general action movie fodder, then avoid "Stealth" and go cry over Private Ryan or something. I suppose it's somewhat harsh to call "Stealth" mindless. The movie isn't stupid, just simplistic. Think of it as a good kind of dumb. The general idea is that these three ace pilots take on a computer controlled forth wingman and try to teach it to be the ultimate war machine, until the AI inevitably starts doing its own thing and begins causing problems. It's a tired and predictable plot idea, but keep in mind that we are dealing with a good kind of dumb movie. Two of the pilots share a love interest that, surprisingly, isn't just shoved into our faces with no explanation or room for development. They sort of dance around each other, trading awkward dialogs and regret filled stares which, if you ask me, is about the speed any secondary romantic side story should travel in a supposedly action oriented flick. The action part of it certainly looks very impressive. The effect shots, which are EVERYWHERE in this movie, are all animated perfectly and fired through every scene until by the end of each exchange, we've followed every missile from its launch to its impact and flown along side each of the planes as they have covered thousands of miles of terrain in mere seconds. There are plot twists in the movie that give it a sense that it could have been an epic, but it decided to just sort of play around instead. The story is basic, but not linear. If you think you are going to get nothing but sky fighting, think again. They throw in some on-the-ground gun fighting and chase scenes, some political drama here and there, and of course some man versus machine ideals, which all mix together to balance the film out nicely. As for the acting... aw hell, who cares. It's good enough. No oscars here, but they get the job done and the points across. You'll ally yourself with all the right people soon enough and learn who not to trust before you know it.
BOTTOM LINE: While it's not packed to the brim with absolutely everything an action movie should be filled with, "Stealth" has its strong points. About the only thing that can be said is seriously wrong with the movie is the title. This movie simply screams with explosions, sonic booms, and all that other brainless actiony goodness!

The Dukes Of Hazzard (August 9th, 2005)

Well folks, it's no real secret that Hollywood has essentially run out of original ideas for their blockbusters. Reaching into the archives of comic books, novels, and even multiple decade old movies and television shows, it seems that just about anything can be modernized in the pursuit for more ticket sales these days. The original television show, "The Dukes Of Hazzard" was way before my time, so I knew nothing of it going into the show. I would imagine, however, that fans of the original series would probably get more of a kick out of it than first-timers. I hate to really call all the humour and stereotypical characters "stupid", since they are so in a almost charming way. Let's just say you won't need a lot going on upstairs to be able to enjoy this movie. Of course, on that same note, you won't need to wait too long before you find whatever it is that turns you off from lowest common denominator oriented movies here either. Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott star as Luke and Bo Duke. Neither of them are the sharpest of actors, but then the Duke cousins aren't the wittiest of characters either. Perfect match. Jessica Simpson practically IS Daisy Duke. Enough said. She's in the movie for all the reasons she should be, which is to say just stare at her and never mind the fact that she's actually trying to act or even say anything worth listening to. Willy Nelson is around to provide really stupid jokes, and Burt Reynolds is there too just because the old man doesn't know when to retire--or die. To be perfectly honest, my favourite character was Sheev, played by Kevin Heffernan. Sure he plays a pantsless pyromaniac/conspiracy theorist, but at least he can actually act. The film's director, Jay Chandrasekhar, was even nice enough to invite his other "Super Troopers" buddy Erik Stolhanske to join him in a tribute scene, playing as a pair of campus cops who try to pull the Dukes over in their little patrol cart. Well what do you expect? It's "slow" humour, remember? For what it's worth, the driving action in the movie is pretty tight and rather extreme in some cases. I am also always impressed by any director that manages to match the proper soundtrack to his movie, and hearing some classic Ram Jam and AC/DC as the General Lee screams down the road ahead of the cops was a very nice touch.
BOTTOM LINE: You might be a redneck if you walk out of "The Dukes Of Hazzard" with no regrets. The film doesn't aim very high, but it does nail the target audience dead centre!

The Skeleton Key (August 17th, 2005)

The suspense/horror genre has had its glorious days with exceptional titles like "The Shining", "Jacob's Ladder" and "Silence Of The Lambs". But without Hitchcock and the other cinematic scare masters around anymore, all we are left with are the dregs of the once proud category of creepy movies. Every now and then a faint glimmer of hope can be seen, briefly flickering among the mire of failed ghost stories and slasher films. "The Skeleton Key" is NOT one of these sparkling hopes. It's a haunted house story set in the deep south about a young live-in nurse that takes a job at an ancient house with a history of events that qualify it for haunting. (Bad things happened to those who lived there before, etc.) Kate Hudson takes point as the lead role alongside several other lesser-known actors like Gena Rowlands and Peter Sarsgaard. The acting can't be said to be bad, but it's hardly good enough to save the weak story and pitiful attempts a scares and suspense. You won't need to wait very long before you realize that you are going to spend the entire film waiting for screams and scares that will almost certainly never happen. The "ghosts" in the movie play their parts all too well, because you will never see them. All the shots are predictable even to the most unseasoned of movie goers. She walked into a room and left the door open... it will probably slam shut behind her. She's carrying a glass jar... she'll probably drop it at some point. She's backing away from a creepy photo or statue... she'll probably spin around and run into someone. The list goes on and by the end of the film you'll think you have just sat through a tutorial lesson on thriller movie cliches. Even the fact that the baddies end up winning by the end, which I am always glad to see, couldn't fill up the emptiness this movie left me with as the credits began to role. Much like the acting, the film's resolution is solid, but hardly satisfying. It cleans up all the loose ends and thankfully leaves very little material to warrant a sequel, but when you boil it all down, "The Skeleton Key" is a story that started out with very little potential to be successful and was further doomed by the lack of effort put forward to elevate it above the stature of a mediocre thriller flick.
BOTTOM LINE: If you enjoy going to the movies for reasons other than seeing the films, "The Skeleton Key" might be a good choice for you, especially for you fellas out there with sissy girlfriends who avoid good thriller movies like the plague. Serious movie goers might want to consider different titles that actually have something to offer in terms of their billed category.

The Exorcism Of Emily Rose (January 5th, 2006)

It's strange times we live in folks when you consider the unusual movie genre combinations we are seeing these days, from samurai-sword swinging cowboys and girls to kung-fu soccer players. "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" is one part creepy horror film, one part courtroom drama, and loaded with a lot of chin stroking over all the questions surrounding spirituality. First and foremost, I'd like to start by giving you the heads up I kind of wished I had before I saw this movie: just because you see the word "exorcism" in the title does NOT mean you are going to be blown away by the same degree of shocking displays we were all treated to by "The Exorcist". Yes, there is a possessed young girl in it who twitches and convulses throughout the movie and speaks in freaky foreign languages, but she doesn't see a lot of screen time. The story basically follows the trial of a priest who is charged with eligibly murdering poor Emily Rose in a botched exorcism. You probably won't recognize most of the actors, even in the weeks after you've forgotten the film. Jennifer Carpenter plays Emily Rose as well as the demonically possessed Emily Rose really well, but other than that there isn't anything else very thrilling about the performances. The storyline also follows along those same lines. Don't be fooled by the trailers, there is very little that is "scary" about this movie. If you've had any experience at all with horror movies, there won't be anything here that will surprise you. The courtroom drama that contrasted the spooky parts of the plot is also mediocre, but what truly makes "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" a waste of time is how the entire bi-polar storyline that jumps from eerie water-down "Exorcist" scenes to the trial and back is ultimately drowned out at the end by this daunting theme of spiritual enlightenment. The trial eventually boils down to trying to decide if Emily Rose was actually possessed or if there was a scientific explanation for what was happening to her. Science versus religion: yet another tired idea in movies. And of course, the directors don't want to give a definitive answer to either argument, but instead would like to allow you to ponder over the possibilities that their film, which comes complete with the suspicious "based on a true story" brand in it, has to offer. Personally, I usually look towards movies to escape having to think too hard about life's mysteries. After all, movies are suppose to be entertaining, which "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" fails to be overall.
BOTTOM LINE: There are a lot of different sides to this movie, each of which could have been far more entertaining on their own, but throw together as they are just fail to be entertaining on any level.

Transporter 2 (January 11th, 2006)

I'm always willing to give movies like "Transporter 2" a chance, despite how predictable they are. What can I say? I do like the occasional mindless action movie. Jason Statham reprises his role as Frank Martin, the cold, professional car driving, ass kicking transporter, who lives his life according to the rules he sets for himself. This time around he is simply helping out a friend by transporting a young boy safely to and from school every day, until *gasp* something goes wrong! The boy is kidnapped, Frank's history is discovered and he is labeled as the most likely suspect. Now he has to use all his skills to dodge the authorities, save the child and bring down the real bad guys. It isn't Shakespeare, but that's not why we're here folks. We came for the flying fists and the driving carnage, which "Transporter 2" delivers in spades. There are a few scenes here and there that you really have to stretch your disbelief to swallow, but if you are willing to do that then the entire flick is quite the ride. Statham is quite the athlete I must say, since he doesn't seem to have much trouble climbing moving trucks, dodging oncoming traffic, and going all Jet Li on the grunt bad guys with pipes and fire hoses. As for his opposition, I kind of felt he was a little under challenged. The drug lord in the final confrontation, who we are led early on in the film to believe is a monstrous gladiator, goes down with very little of a fight. And as for his lieutenant, a supposedly psychotic harlot who sees shooting everything as a logical solution to any problem... she hardly makes Frank break a sweat. Her raunchy outfits and makeup made her look more like pure white trash than a crazy killer. If Gogo from "Kill Bill" is a 10, then this "chick" has got to be a 1 at best. So Frank charges through the film, knocking heads, smashing cars, and all the time trying to strike a balance between his compassion and his professionalism. As I said before, it's hardly anything new to the action movie genre. Some of the digital effects in the film were a bit sketchy as well, though they are sparse enough that you won't get too distracted by them. The film also tries a little too hard to be fast paced. Frank will be seen getting out of his car, and then in the very next shot not two seconds later, he'll be in a building we didn't even know he had arrived at. Then he'll be on a jet-ski with little explanation on where it came from or how he got on it. Oh well. It's best you not dwell on all these things and just sit back and enjoy the fun.
BOTTOM LINE: "Transporter 2" seems to have started out as a killer trailer that was stretched over an entire film. If you can forgive its shortcomings, you'll no doubt have a good time watching the action!

Corpse Bride (February 18th, 2006)

Many directors are known for sticking with certain actors, themes and production crew members. Much like Scorsese and Tarantino, Tim Burton isn't afraid to bring back his old friends to help him with yet another eerie project. The triad of director Tim Burton, superstar Johnny Depp and musical genius Danny Elfman are back once again with Burton's newest dark puppet movie "Corpse Bride". With those three and a team of equally astounding cast and crew members, you would think this new film would top the bar set by Burton's 1993 classic "A Nightmare Before Christmas". Sadly, everyone that has been anxiously waiting for the master of surreal filmmaking to one-up himself will have to keep waiting. "Corpse Bride" is an example of some of Burton's "rather good" work, but hardly his best. Make no mistake that the voice acting and degree of work put into the film's presentation are top notch and are nothing short of what you would expect from the names on the poster. However, the storyline is altogether far too gloomy for far too long. The film runs 76 minutes long and I would venture a guess that no less than 45 to 50 of those minutes are dedicated to a scene that is either set in a dark environment (such as the satirically portrayed "world of the living") or one that involves a lot of heavy plot drama. It also doesn't help that the storyline feels like an idea that could easily run its course inside a half hour spread too thin over the length of the feature. While the technical achievements of the movie are enough to keep an audience from walking out of the theater, they sadly cannot keep the movie as a whole from being uncomfortably dull. I was also especially disappointed by Elfman's effort this time around. Granted he does come through in spades when it comes to the musical numbers, but the underlying scoring of the film just seems like filler to me. Normally Elfman's scores are enough to tell the entire story by themselves, but they stand out more as the hole plugs they were no doubt meant to be in "Corpse Bride". As for the puppetry, it is skillfully executed, but unfortunately misplaced. A dialog-driven story like "Corpse Bride" is hardly the place for talented puppet artists to really strut their stuff. I was surprised by how well the artists were able to use the puppets' faces to show the character's emotions, but other than that, even the more lively "dead" characters didn't really have much life in them.
BOTTOM LINE: Though just as potent in its quality of production, "Corpse Bride" is nowhere near as "fun" as Tim Burton's previous movies. It's a slow melodrama soaked in melancholy, and while you probably won't be driven out of the theater, you won't be humming the songs on your way out either.

Saw 2 (February 19th, 2006)

They hay-day for horror movies has long since passed, but that doesn't mean they can't still be fun to play around with. The original "Saw" was just gory enough to get it both a cult following and skeptical reviews from critics. This is all we can hope for from a splatter punk with twists and turns thrown in to keep us guessing. "Saw 2" found its genesis hot on the trails of its predecessor's success, however upon its completion, I can't help but wonder whether or not the producers realized they had just rehashed out a nearly identical thriller movie sequel. This time around, Jigsaw, the horrifying kidnapper from the first movie that forces his victims into gruesome situations that make them to truly test their will to survive, isn't hiding in the shadows any more. He's stepping in the spotlight and going toe to toe with the movie's new protagonist, a cliched, down-on-his-luck, hardboiled detective that soon discovers after capturing the madman that his son and several other people are trapped in a death-house created by none other than Jigsaw himself. The clock is ticking as a slow acting poison continues to fill the house, and everyone inside has to face dangerous booby-traps in order to find the antidotes. Meanwhile, our hero detective has to try to get inside the criminal mind of the man that holds them captive before it's too late. The film holds true to the franchise by offering up a lot of really horrific trap gags (like crawling through an active furnace or fishing through a pit of stained syringes to find the numerous antidotes). However, the pacing of the film is enough in and of itself to make you rub your forehead in discomfort. The bouncing between house scenes and the interrogation of the madman and all the high speed, flash-framed editing makes the entire movie seem more chaotic than suspenseful. Everyone is screaming, fighting, bleeding and dying so fast that by the time you do try to get to the movie's overzealous attempt at pulling off another mind-blowing twist ending, you'll probably be dropping your popcorn and reaching for the aspirin. Maybe this was the producer's intention all along? It could be, but most fans of less-than-serious horror flicks, myself included, aren't willing to suffer through a migraine just for a few juicy scares. That aside, the film doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. It's all about shock scares and disgust suspense. Even if it was cut from the same mold as the first movie, it does it's job of entertaining those who can keep up with it well enough.
BOTTOM LINE: "Saw 2" doesn't offer anything new from the first movie, so if you are looking for more of the same, give it a try. The film is definitely not for those with a weak fortitude of both the head and the stomach.

Good Night And Good Luck (March 25th, 2006)

If ever there was a list of reasons why actors should stick to acting, movies like "The Passion" and George Clooney's second stab at directing entitled "Good Night And Good Luck" would both be contenders for one of the higher spots on it. First of all, I will admit that I am probably the furthest thing from a member of this movie's target audience. Add to that the fact that I am Canadian and was born 30 or so years after the period the movie takes place in and it's no wonder none of the names, dates, and a lot of the historical implications are somewhat obscure to me. That I can forgive, and to honest I wasn't interested in a lot of that stuff when I started watching it. I've always been content with a good story and the way it is told. "Good Night And Good Luck" does try to tell a good story about the legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow and his battle against Joseph McCarthy and his communist witch hunts during the 1950's, but it ultimately fails. The presentation is simply dry and void of anything besides dialogue. Granted the acting is brilliant but again, the script caters more so towards the minority of modern movie goers with a master's degree in English. My biggest complaint has to be with how the film remains entirely within the realm of the CBS and the main characters that work there. We start the story off with McCarthy's unconstitutional actions already well known, but only just now being investigated by Murrow and his team. As we progress there is a crossfire of words back and forth between the two sides, however the audience really has to pay attention to (and remain interested with) the events that unfold in order really get anything out of this film. There is very little effort put forward into driving the audience to either side with the movie's hero or against the movie's villain, so by the end when McCarthy is finally "defeated", the viewers feel nothing except frustration when the credits abruptly begin to roll. The expedition, rising action, climax, and epilogue stages of filmmaking are all mashed together in a slew of smoky newscasts that all seem to give the movie a dry documentary feel to it. Nothing appears to be "solved" by the movie's conclusion, because there wasn't anything that was introduced as a problem that NEEDED solving by it's opening. You basically walk away from the show with the same feeling most people would walk away from a newscast about some terrible tragedy that has happened in some country halfway around the world.
BOTTOM LINE: Only those people who are willing to put more effort into understanding the events of the movie than should be required will get anything rewarding out of "Good Night And Good Luck". Clooney should stick to what he's good at.

King Kong (April 5th, 2006)

It is no secret that it is open season on remakes in Hollywood. However, larger-than-life director Peter Jackson, who brought us the unforgettable cinematic masterpieces like "Braindead" and "The Frighteners", has stepped up to re-introduce the story of the greatest beast ever to a new generation of young movie goers. That's right boys and girls, Kong is back and he's never looked better, with seventy years of new CGI and digital effects making him look unbelievably realistic and at the same time undeniably awesome. Sure it's all digital effects, but when they look this good, who cares? Kong isn't the only massive undertaking that the computer pilots had to overtake in this movie either. Jackson has turned Skull Island into his own little Jurassic Park on steroids, filling it with an entire encyclopedia of critters and beasts you won't see at the zoo downtown. Everything ranging from giant bugs, bats, lizards, slugs and even dinosaurs can be found on Kong's hidden island. But make no mistake, this is Kong's house, and there is a definite reason he is called "King". The massive ape takes on everything that gets in his way as he fights to protect his new friend, the lovely Anna. As for the humans in the movie, the acting is... fine. The script couldn't have been more than twenty pages long, as most of the dialog is traded in for a series of drawn out stares off screen by the characters as they gaze upon some new wonder that the audience has yet to see. As for Naomi Watts (who plays Anna) she spends most of the film in Kong's hands as he flings her around endlessly in an effort to keep her out of harm's way. I was tempted throughout the movie to ask how her bones managed to come away from all that rough ape-handling without so much as a fracture, but I decided not to bother. I figured if you are going to harp on the lead female's bones of steel or how the US army is willing to offer a cease-fire long enough for the beauty and the beast to trade yet another heartwarming stare at each other... you'd also have to account for the very existence of a 30 foot tall gorilla... so it's best just to let that sort of thing slide. Pretty much everything in "King Kong" will take a stretch of your imagination to swallow, so be willing to just sit back and not nit-pick at the finer details on this one. Instead just gaze at how good everything looks and how much fun it is to see Kong take on the world! The ending is also rather touching. Despite what side of Kong you've fallen in love with, be it his newly developed sense of compassion or his over developed sense of "Kong-smash-all", you'll be sad to see him go either way.
BOTTOM LINE: The original "King Kong" was a classic, and the remake does it justice and then some. This is one good-looking ape that you DON'T want to mess with!

Grandma's Boy (May 21st, 2006)

The Happy-Madison crew are back yet again with their latest Waterboy/Big Daddy/Longest Yard/50 First Dates/Anger Management/etc installment of "the series of movies to watch while abusing substances". "Grandma's Boy" is about a 35 year old video game tester that is forced to move in with his grandmother and her two elderly roommates. Very quickly this arrangement takes a predictable turn for the weird as his stoner-geek lifestyle begins to rub off on his new roommates. It's nothing we haven't all seen in the long list of movies done by Rob Schinder and Adam Sandler, so don't expect anything new here folks. Doris Roberts (from "Everyone Loves Raymond") does surprisingly play a rather good sport as the role of Grandma Lilly, who comes off at first as the stereotypical over caring, pampering grandmother. As the film continues and things get more and more outrageous she jumps right in with the rest of the crew, partying hard and having a good old time. Allen Covert's character Alex is also manages to bring his hot new boss Linda into his circle after charming her away from his sniveling turbo-geek rival J.T. You've got the hero, the villain, the girl, the quarky sidekick and the good-hearted helpers. Like I said, this movie is anything but original. However, there is something to be said for comedy like this, which mixes together enough slapstick, vulgarity and typical college level humor to be amusing to anyone who doesn't take themselves or movies too seriously. Being something of a computer nerd or having any experience in the geek culture, be it programming, action videogames, DDR, or the Matrix will help you appreciate some of the jokes, and they are somewhat dependant on knowing the source material they are drawing from. Those aside, a lot of the other humor is a mishmash of rather one-dimensional jokes that look as if they were lifted from the Happy-Madison vault of joke ideas and plunked into the story at random. They have little or nothing to do with the plot, which in and of itself is rather transparent and exists merely to keep the whole movie from being just a stony home video a bunch of college kids took one weekend. Make no mistake; this is not a boyfriend/girlfriend show or something you take the kids to see. This is what you put on a drinking/stoner party, or at any event where paying attention to the movie isn't expected.
BOTTOM LINE: "Grandma's Boy" is just the next chapter in the history of lowbrow humor films slapped together just to get laughs out of anyone with a raunchy sense of humor.

Ultraviolet (July 1st, 2006)

How does a movie like this make it? Anyway... "Ultraviolet" is surprisingly brought to us by director Kurt Wimmer, who was responsible for the very well received sleeper success "Equilibrium". Similar to this killer action movie, "Ultraviolet" is set in a seemingly utopian future in which all disease has been ruthlessly destroyed save for one single horrible strain that has survived. It's "symptoms" seem to include heightened senses like eyesight and hearing, fangs, sensitivity to sunlight, knowledge and several lifetimes worth of training in martial arts and gunmanship, and a shortened life expectancy. Since movies like "Blade" and "Underworld" are cool and successful, they just toss out the term "vampirism" in "Ultraviolet" to refer to the infected people. Once that premise is quickly explained in the first five minutes of the film, we are then treated to a twenty minute chase scene that involves "Resident Evil" star Millia "my-name-is" Jonovich battering her way through an army of black storm-trooper-esque enforcers and rampaging through the city in her motorbike. The action sequences are super-saturated with so much CGI masturbation it's almost sickening. None of it looks that impressive and once it's all over, there is still forty minutes worth of empty, boring movie left to get through. The dialog is horribly written, and the plot seemingly takes one random turn after another. Seeing Millia in her skin tight mood suit is enough to keep some interested, but even the diehard fans will get sick of her by her one hundredth face zoom or cool action pose. The director also brings back his Gun-Kata style fight scenes, which involves a combination of gun fighting and martial arts, but those who have seen "Equilibrium" will no doubt be flat out disappointed by how cheesy and overused it is in "Ultraviolet". What the movie lacks in substance it attempts to make up for in presentation. There is a lot of visuals to take in, with a great deal of color and imagery spread without. Violet has an interesting color changing wardrobe and hairdo (which is never explained), and the world she lives in does look impressively futuristic. However, all the movie's prettiness doesn't make up for it's weak story. Maybe if they studio hadn't taken his movie away from him and recut it in an attempt to fill more seats, Kurt Wimmer may have had a successful sister movie for his first big sci-fi hit. As it stands, "Ultraviolet" is just a borish collection of flashy fight scenes and bad writing.
BOTTOM LINE: Movies like "Ultraviolet" are best suited for loud party viewings at which nobody really cares about the movie beyond what they can see on the screen.

Pirates Of The Caribbean : Dead Man's Chest (July 23rd, 2006)

Sequels are very odd. In the case of bad movies, they usually never help, and for good movies like 2003's "Pirates Of The Caribbean : Curse Of The Black Pearl" it's usually and all-or-nothing roll of the dice for the filmmakers. A success means the existing fans will become that much more loyal and the fan base itself will grow. A failure will make the fans feel betrayed and will result in a sharp drop in the franchise's fandom. Luckily "POTC: Dead Man's Chest" doesn't try to fix anything that isn't broken. All our favorite characters are back and nothing really has changed. The story picks up where the first movie left off, and by the end of the film the audience is left hanging on a monstrous cliffhanger that screams TRILOGY! But that's fine. When "POTC: Revolutions" (or whatever it's going to be called) comes out next year, all the fans will come back to see how the whole story ends. All the reprised roles are pretty solid. Will Turner is just as heroic and somewhat naive as he was, Elizabeth is just as tomboyish and headstrong, and Captain Jack Sparrow is just as... well, he hasn't changed. He's still not entirely trustworthy either, which lands poor Will and Elizabeth in more trouble yet again. The film is just as lighthearted as the first, packed with swashbuckling swordfights and adventure on the high seas, with the introduction of a new villain, the fishy Captain Davy Jones, who apparently ALSO has business to settle with Jack Sparrow. Davy also has a pet Kraken--a massive CGI generated ship eating squid that gives the Black Pearl no end of trouble! The humor of the first movie hasn't gone anywhere either. If anything, I felt that maybe the makers were trying a little too hard to get laughs out of the audience. I can see the charm of a funny movie the whole family can enjoy, but some of the gags began to spin into the realm of ridiculous after a while. Nevertheless, the acting is solid, and the storyline, though hard to follow the first time you see it, twists and turns just as much as the first movie did. It isn't enough to make you stop dead in your tracks and scratch your head wondering what is happening and who is on who's side, but it isn't linear by any means either. And much like the Matrix and LOTR movies, the films shocker ending will no doubt blow your eye-patches right off.
BOTTOM LINE: If you are one of the many fans of the first "Pirates Of The Caribbean" movie, you won't waste your money or time if you catch the sequel. Be ready to invest in seeing the final movie in the trilogy if you do, however!

Pulse (August 16th, 2006)

Fresh from the assembly line of Hollywood's massive collection of Japanese inspired horror stories comes "Pulse", which is a remake of "Kario", a Japanese horror film released over five years ago. Once again the Japanese are foretelling the end of life as we know it by means of a spooky specter invasion of soul-stealing baddies that come to us this time through our computer screens, cell phones, and television sets. "Pulse" stars a no-star cast of forgettable teen hipsters, a busty blond bombshell lead character and her Calvin Klein sidekick. It's essentially par for the course as far as teen horror movies go, so don't be too disappointed. The plot and storyline are also rather predictable... in so much as the film literally amounts to each of the credited characters getting picked off one by one by the distorted digital demons. It all starts with a virus that is released into the net that... somehow... opens up a doorway through which the dead start streaming in. Pretty soon they are on every computer screen and it's not too long before they start pouring into our world on the hunt for... uh... life... I guess. None of the finer details are explained, and in the span of half the movie, the cyber-ghosts manage to wipe out the better part of humanity, leaving the world looking like the aftermath of one of George Romero's movies (albeit much cleaner...). The two main characters do manage to escape to relative safety, and the film ends on the awkward note of humanity's reluctant surrender of all its major cities. While it is tradition in Japanese horror for the baddies to usually win, making the story seem that much grimmer, in the case of "Pulse" you will more or less be left feeling close to nothing. There is isn't much about any of the characters that really make you relate or identify with them enough to care if one is dying and another is going to make it, and the rest of the world isn't really featured much in the core story anyway, so you hardly notice it going down the tubes as the invasion grows. As for the scares in the film, a seasoned horror movie fan can easily tell when the jump scares are coming. They are there though and have a moderate degree of effort put into them, making "Pulse" a good film to take your semi-squeamish girlfriend to guys. It's only got a PG13 rating, so you won't seem a lot of blood or gore. In fact you don't really see much of anything. The ghosts only appear on screen long enough to build the suspense high enough that something as simple as an edit is all that is needed to deliver the scary payoff!
BOTTOM LINE: "Pulse" is a spooky story we've all already seen. Still, it's not bad if you have the time to kill!

Snakes On A Plane (August 21st, 2006)

Aw yeah all! The man Samuel L. Jackson is going up against some motherf**king snakes on a motherf**king plane up in here, dawg! Alright, seriously enough of that. There has been a lot of internet buzz about this movie since it was announced earlier this year. While the plot of the film really is as simplistic as the title entails, "Snakes On A Plane" should not be underestimated for its entertainment value. A lot of people have been quick to dismiss it a some dopy B-movie washout with a big name slapped into the lead role in order to fill seats. Well yes, it is hardly a blockbuster and the whole concept is rather one-dimensional, but I think it's safe to say that the makers of the film knew that already, and used it to their advantage. If you think about it, the concept implied in the title is original. If you discount the obvious "Raider's Of The Lost Ark" reference, you'd be hard pressed to find a movie that features snakes on a plane! In all honesty, it's a fresh new idea that may have turned out to be quite a successful thriller had the producer's decided not to just have fun with it instead. The first third of the movie gives us the "why" surrounding the unusual thrilling combination, as well as introduces us to all the characters (that survive at least) on the plane. We've all seen these characters before... the prissy blond with one of those rat/dogs in her purse... the hip-hop star and his two meatball hommies... the Asian kickboxer... the Caucasian Wall Street asshole... the list goes on and on. Oh yeah, and there is the Samuel L. Jackson character in there too. So once the plane is off the ground and the snakes get out, pretty much all hell breaks loose, as you might expect. The entire second act shows the snakes kicking ass and wiping out all the no-name extras before the rest of the crew manages to barricade themselves into the front half of the plane using luggage as a blockade. (Yes, I know that makes no sense and wouldn't work, but the filmmakers didn't care so you shouldn't either!) The creativity used to expand the fright scenes into more than "snake kills passenger 6" over and over will surprise you. Most of the lines used by the passengers are corny but just enough so to make you laugh. You'll even jump a few times at the snakes that spring at you from off screen, which I found surprising and refreshing! Eventually Sam uses his Jackson powers to deliver the flyers to safety and turn the tides against the dastardly reptiles that so rudely got him right pissed off!
BOTTOM LINE: Go into "Snakes On A Plane" with an open mind and a sense of humor, or don't bother!

Happy Feet (November 18th, 2006)

Bet you've never seen penguins sing and dance like this before! "Happy Feet" takes us to the bottom of the world and into a beautifully rich landscape where a clan of Emperor Penguins is living out their lives, full of love and song. But for little Mumbles, who can't sing but has some fierce tapping footsies, life is a bit more difficult. As the black sheep of the tribe, Mumbles is challenged with trying to fit in with his peers as well as finding his soul mate. And on top of that, the fish in the nearby waters have mysteriously become sparse! The movie follows Mumbles from his hatching throughout his journey to make contact with the strange creatures stealing the food from his home. Along the way he will run across a whole flock of friends and fiends, and his strong will and lightning fast tapping eventually end up carrying him to the ends of the earth as he knows it, and beyond! "Happy Feet" is definatly the movie for the singers and dancers of your family. The first half of the film is a string of epic musical numbers and fast paced slip'n'slide races through the icy glaciers as young Mumbles and his friends learn the ways of the penguin. Eventually the theatrics die down a bit and a surprisingly deep and well thought out storyline does come to the surface, with a multitude of stunning visuals filling up each and every scene. Even if you aren't much for tap dancing or aren't into the poppish tunes feature in the soundtrack, the movie is still captivating. It is quite simply very nice to look at, with its beautiful vast arctic landscapes and well animated characters. The voices are picked up by some of the biggest names in Hollywood, some of which do some impressive musical vocal work of their own. Robin Williams is around too for laughs, filling the slots of both the charismatic little Ramon, and as the overzealous penguin prophet Lovelace. And as for Mumble's masterfully funky feet, I guess having a legendary tap dancer like Savion Glover help you out with your motion capture work really pays off, cause it looks amazing.
BOTTOM LINE: If you have ever tapped your foot to a song in your life, "Happy Feet" is a show you won't want to miss. The movie has laughs, fantastic visuals, and a whole lot of singing and dancing... penguins!

Silent Hill (December 7th, 2006)

As a general rule, movie adaptations of video games are often a kiss of death at the box office. "Silent Hill" isn't necessarily an exception to the rule; however it does deserve special attention for its creator's ingenuity. I've been a huge fan of the whole series since the first game came out several years ago, and I sat in ample anticipation when I heard there was going to be a movie version of it. However, I was careful not to expect anything as remarkable as what the first few games achieved, and was right to do so. "Silent Hill" does a wonderful job of bringing the series' beautifully horrifying imagery to the screen. The level of production value that went into recreating the disturbing creatures and eerie atmospheres of the town were spot on, and with all the music taken straight from the series' phenomenal soundtracks, the film defiantly looks and sounds as beautiful and evil as the games. The story is a loose spin-off of the plot of the first game. In the film a mother and emotionally troubled child travel to a sleepy little town to find the answers as to why the daughter has been haunted by terrible nightmares. Soon after they arrive, young Sharon goes missing and her mother Rose sets out to find her, venturing into the abandoned streets of Silent Hill. However the town quickly takes a turn for the absolute worse and she gets swallowed into a world of darkness and evil that she can't seem to escape. Vile creatures begin to hunt her and the town itself shifts into a hellish world of rust, ash, and grated floors and walls. While the aesthetics of the film emulate the game series well, "Silent Hill" also shares the games' somewhat abstract storytelling elements. Fans of the series will probably "get" the story more than just casual movie-goers, and even then only if they are willing to really invest in it, since it stretches a fair bit by the end of the film. Nothing is really ever explained in full detail throughout the plot, and by the end the audience is really left hanging. But then again, maybe that's the point.
BOTTOM LINE: While it may not impress everyone, even fans of the series, "Silent Hill" is perhaps one of the most accurate movie adaptations of a horror video game series to come out in a long time.

300 (March 14th, 2007)

It is a rare thing to see the action movie genre produce anything truly entertaining, and it is even more unusual to see a well adapted comic series brought to the big screen. But when 2005's "Sin City" came out, audiences were shocked to see both these things in the same feature. It is in that tradition that the newest film based on Frank Millar's work, "300" has continued with an equal, if not overwhelmingly higher amount of exciting awesomeness! You have no business enjoying comic books or action movies at all if you can't feel your blood boil at the idea of seeing a force of 300 Spartans, known as one of the greatest army nations throughout history, slicing and chopping apart millions of enemies in a blaze of glory! "300" is just a bloody good time any way you cut it. The action scenes have a bullet-time sense to them that manages to look remarkably fresh and incredibly brutal. The CG scenery is beautiful and the crisp sounds of metal clashing and blood squirting really sets the tone. Gerard Butler's character King Leonidas strikes a perfect balance between the cold, unyielding warrior king and the wise-cracking, loyalty-inspiring bad ass alpha male leader of the three hundred men. In fact, all the Spartan warriors are portrayed as little less than psychotic maniacs, howling their warcrys as they charge into battle and laughing insanely as they shield themselves from the arrow storms of their enemies. My only real disappointment with the film is with Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo. In a stark contrast to her king, she is completely lifeless as she delivers her monologs to her husband and later in the film to the Spartan council. The script leads the audience to believe that Spartan women are just as strong as their sons and husbands, as does history, however the only two women characters in the film are the queen and the oracle, and both of them are abused and dismissed by the men. The sub-plot of the Queen's attempt to pursude the Spartan council is just boring and serves only to fill time until we can get back to the boys kicking ass again!
BOTTOM LINE: Prepare for glory! Prepare for a violent, bloody good time! This is Sparta!

The Reaping (April 3rd, 2007)

The greatest source of material for any kind of story has always been religion--particularly the dark and powerful side of it. Films like "The Ten Commandments" "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Nativity Story" all focuses on memorable events and characters from the bible, and for all intensive purposes Hollywood does them justice. "The Reaping" isn't a tale from the bible but it is based on biblical events, however rather than bringing good stories to a non-bible reading audience, it more or less is just a collection of flashy theatrics and corny scares. The recreation of the ten plagues are all fun to look at but that's all the movie really has going for it. After all, a once missionary turned atheist main character who has her faith tested by unexplainable events is hardly a new concept. Now, I'm not saying that seeing a river full of blood or a legion of pissed off locus swarming around stirring up trouble isn't cool. All of the effects are polished to a nice shine and look really menacing. The problem stems from a predictable storyline and a collection of acting that isn't necessarily bad, but it just has no real substance to it. The script moves the story along at a pace you almost hope for after you are halfway through the film: fast! You will find yourself less interested in what the characters are saying and more interested in getting to the next plague. There are some other spooky things thrown in near the end like cultism, ritualistic murder and the supposed coming of the antichrist but all of these things once again take a back seat to the big ten plagues. There isn't nearly enough rising action in the story arc to yield a successful payoff during the climax, which leaves the final confrontations rather bland and unfulfilling. Even the twist ending is only half inflated by the time it bursts forward.
BOTTOM LINE: "The Reaping" doesn't offer much in the way of storytelling especially for a bible-based idea. Some of the effects are cool to look at but the majority of the audience won't get much out of it, and if you are touchy about religious concepts being used for entertainment purposes, you will STILL have to put forward a great deal of effort to even be offended by the film.

Grindhouse (April 14th, 2007)

There really is no reason to beat around the bush: "Grindhouse" is one of the most exciting and entertaining movies I've seen in the past few years. Even without the nostalgia factor of having grown up watching grindhouse style movies, the two features in this movie had me wildly pumped for the majority of the film. The "Grindhouse" experience isn't just the two films either. Packaged with the two movies are fake trailers for other grindhouse style movies and a few other goodies as well. The movies have also been aged with scratches, missing frames of video, audio hiccups and even entire missing reels, all of which do add to the entertainment of the experience. Traditionally movies like the two that directors Tarantino and Rodriguez have made here were of such low-budget caliber that no real actors could be hired, so the films instead had to rely on as much exploitable material as possible. This included a heavy amount of gore and sexuality that one would never see in a major motion picture. "Grindhouse" does a wonderful job of emulating that gritty style with a grotesque amount of bloody violence and a slew of bombshell babes littered throughout the cast. And with major names like Bruce Willias, Micheal Biehn and the man Tarantino himself mixed in the cast list, these two grindhouse movies include some decent acting as well, which only makes things that much better. The first of the two films is Rodriguez's "Planet Terror", a Carpenter inspired zombie movie that is just absolutely fantastic to watch. It has gut-retching gore splattered all over, and nothing says sexy-awesome like a Go-Go dancer with an assault rifle bolted to her leg. For me, seeing that chick in the trailer was so reminiscent of "Army Of Darkness" that it truly was the selling point for the whole movie. After that there is a short intermission featuring trailers for other films such as "Hobo With A Shotgun" and "Nazi Werewolf Women Of The SS". Quite possibly the best part of the whole film, these trailers are just as raunchy and entertaining as the two features, if not more so. Then we move on to Tarantino's "Death Proof", a slasher film about a crazy stunt driver who stalks and terrorizes women in his full loaded 1972 Chevy Nova. Given his reputation, I would have to say this is possibly some of Tarantino's worst work, and it really is a shame that it had to be included alongside Rodrigeuz's film. Tarantino has often opted for scenes with very long stretches of well written and brilliantly delivered dialog in his movies, and "Death Proof" is no different. This time around that sort of gets him in trouble though, because by the time you finish "Planet Terror" you will be drooling in you seat for more action, and "Death Proof" unfortunately takes a very long time to deliver. There are a couple of downright boring and longwinded scenes of the girls just sitting around talking that just brings the whole double feature to a screeching halt. Thankfully the girls do eventually get back on the road and things heat up a bit, and the final car chase scene (which admittedly drags a bit itself at twenty minutes in length) shows of some rather impressive cinematography but nevertheless fails to bring the audience back to the level of excitement that "Planet Terror" brought them to. As a whole package though, "Grindhouse" is possibly the best example I have ever seen of a movie that is "so bad it's good". The gore is to such an extreme level that you can't help but either flinch or laugh at its absurdity, and there is a great deal of horrible cheesy humor that anyone with a sense of humor will react to. Despite how "Death Proof" drags on at times, both movies are still very impressive and true to their genres.
BOTTOM LINE: "Grindhouse" is a movie that will entertain anyone who enjoys a genuine movie-going experience. It is a well packaged tribute to a very hardcore style of movie making, and it is guaranteed to get a reaction out of anyone who watches it.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End (June 1st, 2007)

Trilogies are a funny sort of thing. If the first movie is good, like REALLY good, this is usually how it ends up. Some series pull it off successfully, like The Lord Of The Rings, and some manage to only squeeze one successful sequel out of the franchise before dying from memory (like, say... the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movies). Having seen "The Curse Of The Black Pearl", I fell in love with Captain Jack Sparrow and his adventures much like I am sure you did. "Dead Man's Chest" did a good job filling its proclaimed role as "the next chapter in the POTC stories" except when it came to its ending. Much like Matrix and newer Star Wars series, episode two ended with a gargantuan cliffhanger that I am sure even Stallone would shutter at the sight of. Which brings me to "At World's End", which takes much the same stance as the final Star Wars movie "Revenge Of The Sith" did: the let's-get-this-over-with mentality of storytelling. Luckily, Captain Jack, Will Turner, Elizabeth Swan and all of your favorite characters all reprise their roles perfectly, and all the adventures on the high seas that made the first two movies so much fun have stuck around to end. Swords, ships, skulls and crossbones, double-crosses, maps... it's all here! Once again everyone is out for their own ends, and it's anyone's guess who's on whose side at any given time. The gags remain cheesy but in good spirit, and the swashbuckling action is present in its bloodless glory! The writing and acting is as spot on as ever, however I must confess that this movie has one enormous flaw and if I don't address it, it will be the elephant in the living room that nobody mentions for the rest of this review: the movie is just... too... LONG! Seriously, if you sit through all of the credits you are looking at just over three hours of film. Now you might be saying, as I did, "well Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King was almost that long". Well yes that is true, but where the two films differ a great deal is that not all of the screen time dedicated to POTC:At World's End is used wisely. I almost hesitate to say it's even used at all. There are several scenes that we as an audience anticipating more pirate shenanigans or high seas adventure could simply have done without. The opening in particular stands out like a sore thumb in my mind, and I am sure anyone who has seen the film will agree with me when I say that entire scene could have realistically been walked off the plank and nobody would have missed it. Other scenes that deserved more attention from the editor's red marker include all the sentimental scenes between Will and Elizabeth, Will and his father, Elizabeth and her father, and so on. If you want to give the characters some depth and show their emotional sides, then do it in less than a page at a time and move on. We paid for cannonballs and daggers clenched between teeth. If anything what the writer of this movie should have done in my opinion is used a lot of that screen time wasted on family spats and inner soul-searching to maybe explore just what on earth becomes of some of the more spectacular characters that this film and the second one spent a lot of time building up and then just boot from the screen, never to be heard from again. I'm talking of course about the Kraken and the mysterious Calypso characters, not to mention Captain Teague. Seriously, am I the only one that wanted to see more of Keith Richards dressed up as a pirate? I didn't think so!
BOTTOM LINE: "Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End" wraps up the story arc of the Will Turner, Elizabeth Swan and Captain Jack Sparrow rather nicely, with some laughs and good times along the way. The movie has parts that drag and elements that lack explanation, and like all sequels it's nowhere near the caliber of its predecessors. Still, it is the same family fun you've come to expect from a movie based on a ride featured at a park run by a mouse. ARRRRR!

Halloween (September 7th, 2007)

There are a slew of classic "boogieman" figures out there, and everyone has their favorite: Jason, Freddie, Leatherface, Chucky and so on. I've always been a big fan of the franchises that sport these iconic characters. Most people rate the legendary Michael Myres of the "Halloween" series lower on their list, just because he doesn't really have the supernatural spunk that guys like Freddie or Pinhead might have. But honestly, I think the big guy is highly underrated. Aside from Leatherface, he's about the only really big boogieman out there that doesn't have spooky magic powers to rely on, and instead just sticks with good old fashion insanity. I like that in a killer. What I really have to give the masked murderer a lot of credit for is not so much his simplistic yet effective weapon choice, or even his unbearably creepy blank mask stare--it's the fact that dude just WILL NOT STOP! Now, one thing that really impressed me about the remake of the 1978 slash classic was that it's the first movie Rob Zombie has directed that I've been able to sit all the way through. In fact, while he did have to rely on an already established main villain and a painfully simplistic film archetype, Zombie actually made a decent horror movie for a change! The film picks up with Myres as a child, growing up in a broken home. A victim of bullies at school, contempt from his sister and mother, and abuse from his father, Myres becomes the product of a combination of several horribly disturbing elements that twist his heart and severs his mind from all thoughts of reason and morals. On a late Halloween evening, Michael finally dawns the first of many masks and brutally murders his father and older sister. Racked with grief and tormented by the continued slip into silent dementia by her son, Michael's mother takes her own life, leaving only Michael's baby sister alive as the one single strand of compassion that can penetrate his madness. Hidden from his sister for fifteen years, Michael's seemingly dormant bloodlust reactivates on yet another Halloween evening. All grown up into a giant of a man, Michael escapes his hospital cell and goes on the hunt for the last remaining member of his family. As I said, Zombie uses the tried and true format of the typical early eighties slasher films for "Halloween". All the signs are there and they literally spill forth in such overwhelming abundance that I'm guessing Zombie was actually TRYING to fit as many references to the old-style splatterpunks as he could. Pretty much all of Myres' victims are either wormy little cops and security guards who look like they would get knocked over by the recoil of their guns, or busty bombshell and Calvin Klein teenagers with horrible potty mouths who spend most of the movie either talking about sex or having sex before they get all cut up. Jump scares are abundant, but not too overly used throughout the film, which I found pleasantly surprising. Zombie also has learned from his mistakes in his previous films too and actually gotten rather good a building the tension. Near the end of the film, the Terminator-esque sense of persecution and relentlessness of Michael's seemingly unwillingness to accept a magnum gunshot wound or a stab wound to the neck as signs of defeat are peppered nicely with the savory sounds of loud crashes as he smashes through walls and the shrill cries of his female victims as they attempt to scramble away from him. A lot of the kills are less over-the-top then you might think, but there are still a few sensational ones thrown in there to keep the spirit of the film alive (the most memorable being Michael pinning a guy to a wall with his kitchen knife). The finale is pretty grand and a nice pay-off for all the tension leading up to it, and I was glad to see Zombie wasn't going to patronize us with a lame cliffhanger or calm aftermath scene that ends with a final scare before the credits roll.
BOTTOM LINE: He had to use an old and establish classic to do it, but Rob Zombie has finally made a half decent horror flick! Trick or treat!

Shoot'em Up (September 7th, 2007)

As much as it is blamed for a lot of the evils in the world, like high school shootings and gang related fatalities, violence is still one of the leading forms of entertainment in movies. Action movies are as old as the medium itself and a well produced one is very difficult to find these days. "Shoot'em Up" joins the ranks of "Sin City" "300" and "Grindhouse" before it as an example of an over-the-top action movie done right! It is balls-to-the-wall action and entertainment from frame one, and the whole film is loaded with everything that makes an NC-17 rated movie entertaining. "Sin City"'s Clive Owen stars as a no-name hero who is chased by a hitman (Paul Giamatti) throughout the whole movie after he rescues an infant child from its dead mother (who dies from a bullet to the head in his first gunfight). The two play a very grown up and deadly game of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, complete with bad jokes and horrible one-liners that fly around almost as much as the bullets do. The action is sensationalism in its rawest and most macho form, from a skydiving gunfight to a vehicle to vehicle gunfight to a mid-intercourse gunfight! Clive Owen's Smith character turns to a lady of the night for aid in evading the clever hitman, who employs more and more manpower and firepower with every encounter. The two of them share a ranchy chemistry that spawns even more dirty jokes and bad puns, which complement the bloody mess left behind every shoot out nicely. The movie never has a boring part in it either, which almost tempts me into placing in higher regard than "300" at times. The plot is paper thin and while there is enough of it there to keep all the action sequences from being totally mindless and random, the director doesn't waste any time on it more then he should. Nearly everything the three main characters say and do will leave you with a grin on your face. The dialog is a horrible slew of cheesy humor that can only find a proper home in a cheesy over-the-top action movie. One of the most impressive parts of the movie had to be the scoring. I am always impressed by the marriage of the right kind of scene, whether it be action, dramatic, comedic, or whatever with music that compliments it, and "Shoot'em Up" strikes that complete and perfect unity of wild action and powerful heavy metal. All the action scenes are fitted with driving rock music that just punches up the action that much more, such as songs from Motorhead, Nirvana, My Chemical Romance, Wolfmother and the end credits song featured in the trailer, Motley Crue's "Kickstart My Heart" (which is one of the most ball-breaking rock songs I can think of). The film does feature a lot of blood and there are some rather gory deaths (particularly the several death-by-carrot scenes), but none of it is blood for the sake of blood. Getting shot just happens to do that to a person and let's face it, a LOT of people get shot in this movie. And I'm not talking glancing fleshwounds or anything. I'm talking about headshots, eyeshots, crotchshots, you name it! There is some TnA thrown in for good measure too, because after all, it wouldn't be a testosteroen focused movie without some lady flesh here and there!
BOTTOM LINE: "Shoot'em Up" is just balls-out action fun. It is violence taken to its extreme limit so much so that you can't help but enjoy it, and the hard rock, round curves, wicked characters and bad jokes all mix together with it nicely!

Beowulf (November 14th, 2007)

Gerard Butler set a new standard in "300" for the macho heroic protagonist who battles against ancient evils. In his footsteps comes Ray Winston playing one of the oldest epic heroes of Anglo-Saxon storytelling, Beowulf. The film "Beowulf" is a Hollywood-glorified rendition of the epic poem written in the first century about a brave young hero of the Geats who visits a Danish mead hall in order to rid it of the monster terrorizing it, Grendal. (Who is oddly played by Crispin Glover, famous for playing George McFly in "Back To The Future") Once slain, Beowulf is next charged by the Danish king Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) to defeat the beast's mother next. Beowulf ventures to her lair and deals with her, returning to find himself appointed the next king. Later in the film, a much older Beowulf also battles a fierce dragon with mysterious ties to his past. The whole film is a series of battles really, with small exchanges of macho dialog peppering the first half. The second half is more focused on Beowulf's turmoil as he regards his failing kingdom. The entire film is presented in a mixture of CG rendering layered on top of what must have been rather extensive motion capturing. The result is one of the most impressive looking non-Disney animated films I've seen since "Final Fantasy: Spirits Within". In addition to this, the film is also presented in 3D, so if you happen to catch the 3D version, you can dawn silly looking Clark Kent glasses and see stones and rocks and coins and blood come flying out of the screen at you. It really ups the whole experience in my opinion, and makes what would otherwise be an average Hollywood bastardization of an old story into a remarkable fun experience. Where "Beowulf" falls short in a few places mostly centers around small flaws that stand out in a big way. There is a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor that you would expect from a group of monster-hunting glory hounds. The biggest example is the battle with Grendal, in which Beowulf discards all his clothing and weaponry. Not since "Austin Powers" has there been such a cheesy block-the-"sword" film sequence. Beowulf himself comes off more as an overgrown frat boy then a warrior. This isn't to say he's incompetent; he's just boastful and has a lot of hot air. Anthony Hopkins delivers yet another fine performance, however the role of the often drunk and also somewhat boastful Danish king is something of a jarring alteration in what we are normally accustomed to seeing him play. We also see far too much of his skin for my tastes. The female characters are heavily objectified in that there is not one unattractive, un-busty one in the whole film. However, unlike "300", the women characters actually have some depth to their characters, especially when you look at the relationship between Queen Wealthow, Beowulf's inherited wife, and Ursula, his mistress as an older king. The ending attempts to be cryptic and deep, but it will leave you scratching your head if you try to read too far into it.
BOTTOM LINE: "Beowulf" is a popcorn throwing movie that you should be watching with your friends and 3D glasses. It's epic in size, but not in scope, so just don't think that much about it and instead enjoy the singing, slashing and skin!

The Mist (November 15th, 2007)

Stephen King has always been my favorite author. He's often described as the "master of horror" or the "genius of monster story writing". In actuality, a lot of King's stories have less to do with supernatural horrors or boogiemen and more to do with how regular people behave when faced with their fears and the unexplainable. "The Mist" is a primary example. In it, a small town is hit with a terrifying mist that traps a group of the townspeople in a supermarket. With their escape blocked by the appearance of creepy and deadly monsters that attack whenever they try to venture into the mist, the group looks for any possible explanation it can. Tension begins to grow as the group begins to slowly become more and more influenced by the biblical ramblings of Mrs. Carmody (performed exceedingly well by Marcia Gay Harden), the town's resident spiritual fundamentalist. Feeling that their salvation lies within the purging of any heathen elements, Mrs. Carmody and her eventual followers become more dangerous than the monsters in the mist. Eventually a handful of people, including the story's main character David and his son, are the only ones willing to risk journeying into danger rather than remaining with the bigoted mob. The film does eventually leave the market and takes us into the blinding mist and all the horrors it contains. The whole story ends on a rather shocking turn of events which results in one of the best unexpected endings I've seen in a long time. I literally had my hand on my mouth for the last ten minutes of the film, and left the theater dwelling on the terrible outcome for quite a while. Many people might mistakenly see the movie as another conflict between people with religious beliefs and those without, and to be fair that is a strong element in the plot. The bigger picture though is really a look at humanity in general. There is a great line in the film that David points out when he is question on whether or not he really believes that the followers of Mrs. Carmody would resort to violence and murder for restitution. David explains that although mankind is considered civilized, once you take away the lights and phones and machines and leave everyone in the darkness, the primal ideas of self-preservation through any means are all that remain. The production of the film matches its excellent story as well. The monsters of the mist are nothing we haven't all seen, but they are done well enough for the amount they are actually on screen. The film crew from the popular television series "The Shield" (which happens to be my favorite live-action television series) was also brought in to give the whole movie a really chaotic look to match the madness the characters found themselves surrounded by. The sequences shot in the mist carry an eerie low scoring that suits the lack of vision perfectly.
BOTTOM LINE: "The Mist" has some creepy crawlies in it, but they are not the real evil in the film. They are more of a vehicle for bringing out the monsters in all of us, and Stephen King's story does a fantastic job of illustrating how dangerous that can be. With some fabulous production work, great acting, and a meaningful and thought-provoking ending, "The Mist" will give you much more than just a scare!

Wall-E (June 28th, 2008)

When it comes to animated, family oriented films, Disney and Pixar are pretty much unstoppable. They bring very memorable characters to life with amazing technique and storytelling, and "Wall-E" is their latest example of how to create an instantly unforgettable character and story. The film opens 700 years in the future where we find Earth a discarded landfill that every human has long since abandoned, leaving behind an army of WALL-E class disposal robots to clean things up. But after seven centuries, only one is still kicking. Wall-E spends his days building skyscrapers out of compacted trash cubes and collecting various little treasures he finds scattered around the wasteland. The manotony of his daily grind is cut short however when EVE, a polished hovering robot, arrives one day to do some scanning on the planet and captures his curiosity... and his rusty heart. The first act of the film shows us all of Wall-E's attempts to gain EVE's affection in all their bumbling yet heartwarming glory. When EVE leaves just as abruptly as she arrived, Wall-E hitches a ride on her ship in an effort to hang on to his new friend. What I found absolutely captivating about both Wall-E and EVE was how diverse a pair of characters who rely only on masterfully crafted sound work by legendary R2-D2 sound designer Ben Burtt can actually be. Both bots only say one or two words besides their names throughout the entire film, but through their eye movements, inflection and the whole spectrum of buzzes, whirs and beeps they utter, they develop far more personality and character than the majority of the human characters in the film. Wall-E may use his naive cuteness as a bit of a crutch to make you laugh and pull at your heartstrings early on, but he's still a very compelling character with a unique and enduring personality. EVE undergoes a lot of character development herself as she interacts more and more with Wall-E. She casts him aside at first, but when he starts getting into trouble she reluctantly tries to help him out until she finally comes to understand how he really feels about her. It's a cute relationship that grows between them... maybe a bit too cute for some viewers. And as always, this Pixar masterpiece comes with lots of fun extras. Wall-E inevitably befriends a bunch of likewise wayward bots who don't fit in with the sleek, sterile machine driven world of EVE's mothership, each one quirky and hilarious in their own way. This is, as I've said, Disney and Pixar, so you know the production quality is going to be top notch. What little in the way of voice casting there is is peppered with some big names like Jeff Garlin and Sigourney Weaver, and all the bots sound unique and fantastic.
BOTTOM LINE: "Wall-E" is another Disney/Pixar classic. It might lean a bit far into the realm of overly cheesy puppy-love story and cheap heartstring emotional reactions at certain points, but it still features unbelievably well rounded characters and a nearly flawless presentation.