movieman430 Reviews

Due Date (2010)

The Hangover 1.5

[7/10 · 1 November 2010]

This is essentially what the Hangover would be if it hit the road. Put Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis in a car and hope that hilarity ensues. And it does. The two play off each other very well, and embrace the mean spirited, but ultimately heartwarming relationship that forms between them.

The movie is very much about Downey and Galifianakis. It's not like the Hangover where there were tons of cameos and side characters to sustain the laughs; it almost all comes from the two guys. Galifianakis gets to be a bit much. He's better in a trio than as one half of a duo. But when he gets to be too much, Robert Downey Jr. effectively responds, acting out the audience's frustration with very gratifying results.

It's not the Hangover, but nothing ever will be. Due Date is funny in it's own way. The humor is a little darker thanks to a hilarious Robert Downey Jr., but director Todd Phillips still has fun sucker punching the audience with his signature brand of situational humor. Ultimately, this movie is very, very funny. It's been a few years since we've had a really good road trip movie. Sitting shotgun with these two guys is a fun way to spend an hour and a half.

District 9 (2009)

First Rate Science Fiction

[9/10 · 14 August 2009]

Science fiction is often perceived as a genre dominated by explosions and spacecraft chases strung together by mere whispers of plot. However, there are some science fiction films that transcend this stereotype and use the genre as a forum to discuss a larger issue. District 9 belongs to this upper echelon of science fiction movies.

Written and directed by Neill Blomkamp, District 9 transports us to world where aliens referred to as Prawns have landed on earth some twenty years ago and after the tension between the two races escalates to violence, the slum District 9 is created to house the Prawns. This is the backdrop of this incredibly well crafted story. The actual plot I will not discuss, as it is better to walk into District 9 knowing as little as possible. District 9 achieves an incredible balancing act that few blockbusters even attempt. It is blends science fiction and political drama flawlessly, fusing them together with a healthy does of in your face action and violence.

Blomkamp's script does not shy away from the complex and deep themes that drive the film. Running just under two hours, the film has a brisk pace but is by no means in a hurry. Blomkamp takes the time to set up a believable political and social backdrop for the mayhem to ensue. And even as the bullets fly and spectacular action sequences unfold, it still never loses sight of it's original intentions. That being said, District 9 is no pensive drama, it's a solid action film. It just so happens to have something to say as well.

Filmed for an amazingly cheap 30 million dollars, District 9 is a sight to behold. The film looks and sounds amazing. The films star, first time actor Sharlto Copley does an outstanding job as the film's hero Wikus. The performances are strong and fill out this completely convincing reality.

District 9 is both exciting and thought provoking. Something few blockbusters can manage. It is without a doubt, a must see film.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

A smack in the face

[1/10 · 12 August 2008]

If I got completely hammered one night, drank a little more, then sat down in front of a computer and wrote a script, it might come out something like The Mummy 3. Except it would probably make sense and not suck so horribly. For those of you who remember, the Mummy used to be a legitimate franchise that combined horror, action, and comedy into fairly tight packages. The first movie is rather good. This apple fell far from the tree and then was left out to rot in the hot sun.

The movie picks up roughly ten years after the Mummy Returns, although no one has aged but Alex who has dropped out of college and is now running a high profile dig in China. Rick and Evelyn, replaced by the insufferable Maria Bello, are chilling out pretending to be happy. After a plot device or two, Jet Li, an emperor who's curse is either to live forever or to talk like a woman, is raised from the dead. The previous mummy effects were pretty damn good, This claymation Jet Li is laughable, especially when he's taking off layers of his face and throwing them as weapons.

But I was along for the ride. I was. I was struggling to deal with Isabella Leong's inability to act in her role as Lin, Alex's love interest. Then, they decided to stroll up to the Himalayas, find an oasis city like they did in Returns, fight off a bunch of bad guys, and get rescued by, wait for it...

Yetis.

What in the name of god possessed Alfred Gough to put yetis in his script? But good old Al decided yetis weren't gay enough, so at the beginning of the films third act, Jet Li suddenly gains the power to turn into a three headed dragon. Take a moment to soak that up. A three freakin headed dragon.

I'm all for going to the movies and having a good time, turn your head off entertainment can be good fun. But Rob Cohen cannot expect us to eat up this crap and not vomit in our popcorn bowls.

The Mummy 3 has not one, not two, but zero redeeming qualities about it. It's a four year olds dream movie dressed up with PG-13 gore. This means that it can't really appeal to anyone. At least anyone with half a brain. So, in the end, this movie sucks and if you see it you are as dumb as the people who made it and that is pretty damn dumb.

The Strangers (2008)

Good suspense, Big Anticlimax

[6/10 · 30 May 2008]

The Strangers is the kind of movie that works incredibly well until half way through. Bryan Bertino came up with a very effective premise, then struggled to make it come together into a cohesive whole and came up short. The Strangers opens with Kristen (Liv Tyler) and James (Scott Speedman), returning home from a friend's wedding. Earlier in the evening, James had proposed to her and she said no, Thus they are very distant towards each other. The rest of the film is them facing off against three anonymous, mask wearing killers who terrorize them.

I applaud the way Bertino handles the majority of this film. Despite some stiff acting against equally rigid dialog, the acting is passable for a suspense horror film. The power of the movie is allowing the masked stalkers to be omnipresent, creating powerful tension. The film is shot well and there are moments that leave you on the edge of your seat. He uses the gore incredibly sparingly, allowing it to remain incredibly effective.

The problem is the third act. Even at a running time of 90 minutes, The Strangers seems to drag on a bit. The stalkers appear roughly 20 minutes into the movie, so we're left with roughly 75 minutes of creeping around a house to ominous tones, and occasionally old western music. It gets a little repetitive and because of the nature of movie there is no break. The great part about build up, is the pay off. The Strangers feels like it's building up to nothing. There is nothing to do but look around that next corner and pass by the man barely visible in the shadows. Going into the third act of the film we get more of the same.

Some people are going to love the ending of this movie, most people are going to hate it, some people are going to be torn. I'm the later. I don't like the ending, however it does fulfill three essential horror movie requirements. 1. Blatantly show that the victims have grown in someway, and make us care about them again just enough for us to be interested in the final confrontation. 2. Leaves room for the essential "final scare". 3. And perhaps most importantly, leaves room for a sequel. That being said, the ending isn't overly satisfying.

In the end, The Strangers is a refreshing throwback to suspense movies that rely heavily on music, atmosphere, and uses the camera to tell the story. Most horror films use gore as a crutch to keep the audience interested, The Strangers moves away from this, although it misses the mark a little bit. If you want to spend 90 minutes filled with decent suspense, and don't plan on thinking about it once you leave the theatre, The Strangers might be the movie for you. However, if you plan on taking a step back, realizing the simplicity of the plot, and then wondering why the film makers could not package it into a cohesive whole, you might want to say away.

Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007)

An epic vision that works better as a work of fiction

[7/10 · 8 May 2008]

Sergei Bodrov's Mongol provides something of a biography of the early years of Genghis Khan, at this point known as Temudjin. The film is destined to be historically flawed as there is little known about his life; this being said, Bodrov takes large handfuls of creative license. Bodrov's Mongol attempts to capture a man's rise to power in just two hours without making a rushed film; this impossible feat is Mongol's only true shortcoming.

Mongol is very much a "based off a true story" kind of movie. We certainly aren't seeing the true Genghis Khan. The film is riddled with historical inaccuracies, he is captured three times during the film, in reality he was only captured once. However, historical accuracy is not Bodrov's intent. Sergei Bodrov, grew up in the Soviet Union, a place where Genghis Khan is painted as a vicious killing machine. Mongol attempts to humanize him. This is the film's strongest point.

Mongol is just a good love story. Temudjin picks a bride at age nine named Börte and is set to wed her in five years. Soon after his father, a Khan, is killed. Betrayed by those his father used to command, Temudjin is left with nothing and swears to take it all back. This is the basic premise of Mongol. The relationship between Temudjin and Börte is portrayed as beautifully simple love. The film uses this connection to move the plot rather than bloody violence. Mongol does, however, contain several spectacular battles. Bodrov seems to have taken a page out of 300 and we're given a splattering of death sequences that while all together different feel and are shot similarly.

The largest flaw of the film is it's continuity. Bodrov, in order to condense the story under 120 minutes constantly cuts scenes in half. He will start a conflict and cut to it being over, leaving the audience to infer what happened. This is a double edged sword, on one hand it frees up time for necessary character development, on the other it makes the film feel choppy. Mongol is one of the few films that should be 15 minutes longer.

In the end, Sergei Bodrov's Mongol is an epic war film that succeeds not only on that level, but as a beautiful love story. The breathtaking landscapes of Mongolia provide an awe inspiring backdrop for the action on the screen. Mongol is a film of proportions not usually seen in Russian or Asian cinema. It delivers on a level that rivals if not surpasses many Hollywood blockbusters while keeping surprising heart evident throughout the film. Mongol truly is an inspiring film not only for the eyes.

Standard Operating Procedure (2008)

Very flawed documentary

[3/10 · 23 April 2008]

Errol Morris's new documentary "Standard Operating Procedure" attempts to challenge the very medium of photography and bring to light the injustices at Abu Ghraib. The film somewhat succeeds in the first respect but fumbles its way through the second. Documentaries are inherently subjective and set out to portray a certain angle; that being said what Director Errol Morris says are his intentions and what appears on the screen are two totally different things. The film stumbles through the events at Abu Ghraib but fails to retain any real emotion, fluidity or energy throughout the work.

Let's look at the good first. Errol Morris takes an interesting stance by constantly asking the viewers "What's outside the frame?" In a sense he's questioning the very medium he is using. This questioned is answered somewhat through testimonies but also quite literally by showing viewers photographs before they were cropped, such as the infamous leach photograph. Errol using some interesting techniques, most noticeably the use of the interotron. The interotron is a screen, similar to a TelePrompTer, that allows the interviewee to look directly into the camera, allowing for a more genuine first person feel to the film.

However, for everything Errol Morris does right, there are a myriad of things done wrong here. While the cinematography of the film interviews via the interotron is interesting, the editing that pieces it together is awful. The film will cut different angles of the same person talking with gaps of black transition that last for almost two seconds. These pauses of black beg you to question "Is the film over?" which is always no. The film clocks in at 117 minutes, but it might as well be four hours long, because that's what it feels like. You can only watch people talk at you for so long. Morris attempts to spice up the picture by using grainy, melodramatic, slow motion sequences that serve little purpose other than to pad an already long film's running time and to flesh out images of his imagination in an attempt to sway the audience to his kind of thinking.

Errol Morris has stated on several occasions that "Standard Operating Procedure" is not a political film. It sure feels like one. Morris paints himself as a detective, similarly to the way he did in "The Thin Blue Line", attempting to bring those truly responsible to justice. Those in the picture are responsible, but he wants to go after those higher up, who ordered the interrogation techniques and knew what was going on. The film merely graces that aspect, pointing a broad finger towards higher command and Bush administration. instead, the film indulges in the American atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, while sympathizing with those who were jailed. Morris also blatantly hints towards the fact that every cell block in every prison in Iraq is performing this sort of torture to this degree. Why no photographs of any other cell block have not leaked, you can decide.

"Standard Operating Procedure" is a failed documentary in that it attempts to be investigative but is so subjective in it's material that it just comes off as a fumbling clump of information. Nothing is truly resolved and more questions are asked than answered. It does give slightly more insight to the happenings at Abu Ghraib, but at almost two hours, S.O.P. is self aggrandizing and indulgent. Morris's political beliefs cloud his objectivity; the way he paints it, President Bush and Rumsfeld were fully aware from the beginning and actively trying to cover it up. Why would Morris take this approach? Because large government conspiracies are a whole lot more interesting than isolated incidents. In the end, there isn't a whole lot of reporting going on here as much as speculating.

The Visitor (I) (2007)

Charming, character driven drama

[9/10 · 2 April 2008]

Thomas McCarthy's second film, after the charming Station Agent, is a quiet, hard look at several different aspects of humanity. The Visitor centers on Walter Vale, masterfully portrayed by Richard Jenkins. A solemn economics teacher, he spends his time pretending to write on his book and learn piano. Walter finds himself in New York on business and runs into two illegal immigrants, Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) and Zainab (Danai Jekesai Gurira who were tricked into renting his apartment. Tarek and Walter strike up an unusual friendship when Tarek begins to teach Walter how to play the drums. This is interrupted by Tarek's arrest and detention while it is decided whether he will be deported or not. Soon Walter is joined by Tarek's mother Mouna.

The Visitor is a wonderful piece that brings together some of the best performances I have seen this year. McCarthy disarms us with wry humor, quiet wit, and a meditative pace and before we know it we've found ourselves immersed. When the credits have rolled, however, it's not so much the plot that stays with us as the characters. The most perplexing and fascinating character is Walter Vale. The transformation undergone by his character is done perfectly, the changes are noticeable but not intrusive. Tarek and Zainab who have only a handful of scenes together, manage to share incredible chemistry. Hiam Abbass, as Tarek's mother, deepens the connection between the characters, almost filling in the cracks to complete a whole.

At first glance, the Visitor seems political in nature. Thomas McCarthy has actually said that was not true, the deportation aspect of the film actually came into the script later in the process. The Visitor, instead of political aspirations, merely seeks to show us that anyone can change your life and that change is all around us and is indeed a good thing.

In the end, Thomas McCarthy succeeds in bringing capturing the humor, tragedy, and change of the human experience in his new film. Brought to life by incredibly stirring performances, particularly Richard Jenkins, the Visitor is the most emotionally powerful film to light up the big screen in a while.

Cloverfield (2008)

Different in a good and bad way. Satisfyingly unsatisfying.

[6/10 · 19 January 2008]

Cloverfield... Okay. This movie is two things. The first is a ripping success, the second is a near cinematic scam that doesn't exactly deliver anything in any great amount, accept vomit if you suffer from motion sickness. Cloverfield benefited from the best marketing campaign since Blair Witch. They based it on one question: What the hell is the damn thing? Now before you go to see Cloverfield, I'm going to hit you with some logic that might deter you or might fascinate you. First of all, if you expect answers, this movie is anything but up your alley, you just need to go with it. Secondly, when they say it's comprised of hand held footage, they weren't lying. The movie is constantly shot at odd angles, the film jumps certain segments, occasionally flashing back to a month prior, a day that the tape is recording over. There is also no soundtrack to the film, it's all just eerie sounds and all that jazz. For those of you who have seen Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, probably not many of you, this is not the same. The camera movements in Behind the Mask jostle just enough for you to believe it's hand held but don't overpower the images on the screen. In Cloverfield, half the magic, probably more than half, is how poorly the movie is shot. Is it effect at time? Definitely. Is it gimmicky? You bet your ass. The monster scenes are effective but too meager; J.J. Abrams said "You will see it." in response to whether this would be like Blair Witch. He probably should have said, "You will see it, once or twice. And a handful of times really out of focus." Another thing, for a movie that is really 75 minutes long, the exposition of the movie is far too long. Now there are moments of truly effective suspense and horror, the monster effects are good and the city in ruins looks pretty good to. Some people like to draw parallels to the terrorist attacks, there are one or two similar things, all drawn from the fact it's New York. Yes, it does suck that New York is constantly picked on, but you've got to expect that, its more effective to see the Chrysler building fall apart than some random building in Dallas. Okay, for those who don't want any spoilers, skip the next paragraph.

Okay, if you're reading this you should have already seen the movie. Now, here are a few of my problems with the film. The movie fails to live up to it's potential. The shedding of spiders, is so freaking cool and yet they are only in three scenes... Okay. Design of the monster is cool but we never really see the whole thing clearly, we see it's face a brief profile, I kinda want more. This movie would have benefited from a longer running time, and an R rating. Like Marlene's stomach exploding was cool and gross, but probably should have been followed up fifteen minutes later by actually seeing something. Another thing, one of the big advantages to the hand held camera is that it almost brings reality to a completely ridiculous situation. Now, in a realistic world, don't you think one or two people might be dropping the F bomb, no, I think everyone would be dropping them right an left. But okay. Now, the ending. Does it suck, yeah, but could it have ended any differently, no. The movie's ending is redeemed by two things. One, in the ending sequence with them at Coney Island, you can clearly see the monster in the water. That's cool. Secondly, if you sat through the credits and listened really, really, really friggen carefully you heard something. Then if you're a douche bag like me, you drove home debating what it was and then looked it up. The following words are uttered in deep static. "Help us. It's still alive." That's pretty damn cool. Will there be a sequel? Maybe. If there is I hope it will not attempt to pull of the hand held thing again.

Okay we're back. In the end, Cloverfield is a standard monster film that uses the home camera gimmick to build mystique and be a little different. Personally, I think with such a great concept and creature design, it might have been able to pull of the standard monster film angle. But it decided to be different. Okay. It's defining quality is also it's biggest fault. How many times will I watch it... Maybe once more. I'd suggest you see it, and then decide for yourself.

Suspiria (1977)

Artsy? Maybe. Good? Anything but.

[9/10 · 18 December 2007]

Okay. I sat down to watch this movie with a couple of my friends. I had heard it was interesting and was Dario Argento's "masterpiece". I was not familiar with the director and while I'm not a huge fan of 1970s cult horror, against my better judgment I threw it into the DVD player. And then watched it. From beginning to end. Yeah. Okay. Now, first, before I go on a tirade about why and just how hard this film sucked, let me tell something to all your cult horror fans who love this movie. I understood it, it's not existential and complex, it just sucks. Just because something is bizarre, doesn't make it cool. All you artsy douche bags think that because it was rejected by mainstream media as trash, it must have some underlying genius. Somethings are just trash. And if you think I'm too Hollywood or mainstream, I like indies probably more than the next guy, but things become mainstream because they work well and i don't know... aren't giant piles of crap. Now, the plot of this film could be written out on the backside of a fortune cookie so I'll summarize it real quick. A young dancer Suzy (Jessica Harper) goes to a European dance school just as a a girl dies a gristly death and after a while realizes that the school is run by a cult of witches and the head witch is this invisible woman from the 1800s, but she's still alive (this is the kind of logic we're dealing with). Okay, did that blow your mind? It blew mine. The film grabs you with a totally bizarre and graphic opening death sequence, stabbed, hung and all kinds of crazy glass wounds. It's all down hill after that. I'll admit Suspiria has one thing going for it, Goblin offers a great soundtrack to the film, very chilling. Okay, back to why this film sucks ass. Most of the people who regard this film as a cult masterpiece because of the atmosphere it creates. Okay, the set design is creative, is it good? Hell no. Just because something looks crazy doesn't make it the best thing since sliced bread. And by the way, basking everything in technicolor lights isn't creative, it's annoying as hell. The film is visually interesting, but with the lack of plot and anticlimactic ending, it sucks on way to many counts to call this movie anything but bad. Are the deaths gory, yes but there are four of them and none are adequately explained. The villains motives are skipped over and the film just ends. I'm going to ruin it for everyone. Suzy stabs an invisible witch then the building begins to shake and bursts into flames just as she runs out the door. What about the children? Oh right, they were conveniently out at the opera or somewhere. In the end, this movie sucks. I can almost see the argument for why it's great, but I don't buy it one bit. This film is not scary unless you're on acid and atmosphere alone does not make a film. A great example of why when people think of film, they think of Hollywood, not crazy Italian drug addicts. Terrible on nearly every account.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

A Force to be Reckoned With

[10/10 · 29 November 2007]

No Country for Old Men is a strange and wonderful kind of film. The movie creeps along at an unsettlingly slow pace and yet you will be glued to the screen every moment. No Country for Old Men may be the Coen Brothers masterpiece. Does it rival Fargo? I say it surpasses it; which might not be fair because they are totally different film, Fargo being much lighter, NCFOM being much grittier.

Without going into the finer details, the movie begins with Llewelyn Moss, masterfully played by Josh Bolin stumbling upon what seems to be a drug deal gone bad. After finding two million dollars in a satchel, he finds himself on the run for his life from various drug runners and Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Tommy Lee Jones plays Ed Tom Bell, the local sheriff who catches on to what trouble Moss is in and attempts to help. This is the setup for one of the most riveting, layer, and bleakly wonderful movies ever made.

And so much of it rests on the shoulders of Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. NCFOM is definitely a character driven piece, all of them inspiringly complex and human. But none are as profound as Anton Chigurh. Javier Bardem has succeeded in created what I believe to be the most frightening character ever played on film. I have seen more horror movies that I can count, yet I have never felt as tense as I did whenever he came on screen. His role is positively brilliant, a true personification of pure evil. This is a man who can make a quarter the most frightening thing you've ever seen. Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones also give masterful and both darkly funny roles. Seeing these characters entangled in a deadly chase for money that begins to lose it's value as all the characters begin to see how damned they truly are.

In the end, No Country for Old Men is a staggeringly power, beautiful, and haunting film that is unrelentingly brilliant. One aspect of the film that many will hate is that it leaves so much up to interpretation, when you leave the theatre you won't want to talk about anything but this film. The true beauty of No Country For Old Men is that it's made up of seemingly unimportant moments that end up holding so much weight, not unlike all our lives. The film also contains a scene with Chigurh at a gas station which is one of the greatest scenes I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. The movie is gritty, bloody, and can't be ignored. No Country for Old Men is a forced to be reckoned with. Destined to go down as an American Classic.

Hitman (I) (2007)

It's fun, just go with it.

[7/10 · 23 November 2007]

Okay before we begin, let's take a look at the title of the film in question: Hit-man. Not only that, but the T is created by pressing two handguns together upside down. Okay, now we know what kind of film we're dealing with. Hit-man is a strange kind of film. It seemed to pop up around the end of the summer with it's teaser trailer and then stay below most people's radar, with the exception being fans of the game. Then in popped up again with a full blown trailer and then two weeks later it was released. This is the approach of a studio that doesn't exactly believe in it's product. However, Hit-man isn't actually all that bad. While not breaking or even bending the rules, the action is load, violent, and stylish. Some of the movies strongest moments are when the hit-man, Agent 47 (Olyphant) is doing his thing, staying one step ahead of the game before the action explodes onto the screen. The plot is a bit convoluted, but it was bound to be. 47 is hired to assassinate Mikhail Belicoff, a Russian politician running for reelection. His problems begin when the man he killed holds a press conference showing him to be simply grazed by the bullet. Judging by the ample amounts of blood used in the assassination scene, he didn't miss. From there 47 finds himself running for his life from Russian goons as well as people from his own organization. And along the way of course he find the hooker with a heart of gold, Nika (Olga Kurylenko). The plot is linear and not complicated. The film carried a serious, but not too serious, tone. Moments of levity surround 47 and his awkward sexual frustration; we see him reading articles about what women want, and he has some humorous back and forths with Nika. However, we all know that Nika's really purpose in this film is to wear a very revealing dress, and then take it off. In the end, Hit-man manages to be a decent action flick, perhaps even slightly above average. I disagree with most people and think that Olyphant did a fine job playing the hit-man. Would Vin Diesel have been a better choice? Maybe, but not necessarily; Olyphant's mild mannered disposition carries the tone of the film very well. So, will it win any Oscars... no. Will we ever be talking about the cinematic significance of Hit-man... no. Will I buy it on DVD... probably.

American Gangster (2007)

A welcome return to the traditional gangster formula.

[9/10 · 4 November 2007]

The first frames of American Gangster show Frank Lucas, Denzel Washington, setting a man on fire and then shooting him to death. You would think this would set the tone for an incredibly violent film. Instead, American Gangster decided to take it s...(read more)low, and build its tension at a slow boil over it's rather long 157 minute run time. American Gangster is a very good, very effective, and somewhat unsettling gangster film that will almost certainly have it's place at the 2008 Oscars. It is the first mainstream gangster film to return to original genre format set up in the 30s, the rise and fall of a gangster. American Gangster is two stories. First it is the story of Frank Lucas' rise to power as a heroin dealer in the 1970s. This is where the film spends most of it's time; exploring both the business side, and the personal side, the film spends a lot of it's time on Frank's family. The second story is of Richie Roberts, Russell Crowe, a narcotics detective attempting to take down a drug empire in a world of dirty cops. Both stories are equally captivating and if there is one fault of the movie it is that the two stories feel awkwardly separate at first, and that's because they are. I said earlier that the tension is set at a slow boil. Throughout the film there are seemingly random shots of drug use used to establish setting, and Ridley Scott cleverly sneaks in Vietnam coverage on the television that in many cases parallels the story. This simmering tension is incredibly effective, making the sociopathic tendencies of Frank Lucas really jump off the screen. The violence is often abrupt, gritty, and once the climax of the film is reached, we're given one of the better, most realistic shoot outs I've seen in a while. The acting in American Gangster is top notch, Denzel delivers his lines with an unsettling calm that really makes the character feel dangerous. Russell Crowe makes the cop feel endearing and yet human, and keeps you rooting for him. In the end, American Gangster is a really really good gangster film and on top of that, just a great movie in general. Does it rank up with the crime classics like the Godfather and Goodfellas, no, but it's damn close. Ridley Scott takes all the right elements and makes them fit into one incredibly entertaining film.

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)

A different but wonderful addition to Warner's gangster films

[8/10 · 8 September 2007]

This movie is a surprisingly emotional gangster film that shows Cagney at the top of his game. Made in 1938, when gangster movies became legit again, the movie features two legends of the genre (Cagney and Bogart) as well as Pat O'Brien and Ann Sheridan both playing their parts wonderfully. The film is unlike most of Cagney's gangster pictures, firstly because he's not the antagonist, but it also seems to have a more benevolent agenda. Instead of concentrating of Cagney's dealings with Humphrey Bogart, it centers on his relationship with the priest, his childhood friend (O'Brien) and his relationship with the "Dead End" Kids. Not as violent as some of the other Warner Brother pictures, Angels With Dirty Faces centers more on the human drama than the violence. It does however have the thrilling collision of Cagney and Bogart as well as the factory shoot out. the cinematography and lighting is very well done and the look of the film doesn't feel tired. What sells the film is of course the ending sequence with Cagney and the electric chair, one of the most powerful moments of the film. The sort of sick morality it lends to the ending of the film for the Dead End Kids is fascinating. In the end, Angels with Dirty Faces, is a very different but effective gangster film that dares to move a little bit out of the crime aspect and into human drama. A worthy addition to Warner's blockbuster Gangster films, and to cinema itself.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

Delivers on What it Promises

[9/10 · 7 September 2007]

Shoot 'Em Up is the great summer action flick that happened two months just happened to be released in September. With a title like Shoot 'Em Up, viewers should have a very good idea about what they just bought a ticket for; it's money well spent.

The film runs 89 minutes with credits and doesn't waste a single one. Just minutes into the movie, the guns are blazing and the action is roaring. Clive Owen stars as a carrot crunching man named Smith, just Smith. Most of his characters background is shrouded in darkness, but by the credits we know enough to justify his butt kicking throughout the film. He steps into the action hero shoes perfectly, playing this urban cowboy with a flair most couldn't muster. The other shining light is Paul Giamatti, playing a role that doesn't exactly slide in with the rest of his resume. Yet, the role seems effortless, he seems to have a lot of fun playing the assassin named Hertz.

But while the characters are fun, Monica Bellucci plays her part well enough and Stephen McHattie does well too, the action takes the leading role in this film. The action rips across the screen taking on a staggering body count. The violence places itself at an appropriate position between fake, and brutal. The blood and gore is so over the top that's it's almost hard to take seriously. This doesn't stop the action from being heart pumping, it is. And there's lots of it. Each action scene has some little piece that makes it stand out from the others, whether it's fancy work with a carrot, an intricate use of strings or just plain, good old shooting. The scenes are spectacularly fun and are given a sense of playfulness that's appropriate for the light, dark humored nature of the film.

There is a plot, most of it revolves around why Hertz (Giamatti) is trying to kill the baby. The plot evolves slowly while, along the way it drops little pieces of information about Clive Owen's character. Clive Owne eventually finds himself in the middle of a conspiracy that makes little sense, but who cares? A movie named Shoot 'Em Up, isn't about plot it's about guns and lots of them. The movie does, however, have enough plot to tie the violence together and make the story feel cohesive.

Overall, Shoot 'Em Up takes the prize for funnest, and bloodiest action movie of the year. It has been compared to Crank, and while they both exploit the whole sex, guns, and rock n roll mindset, they come off with very different feels. Where Crank had a much rougher, shocking feel, Shoot 'Em Up just lets you sit back and enjoy the ride. The film, is definitely one of the funnest movies to come out in a while, and isn't at all a bad way to spend an hour and a half.

Halloween (2007)

An all together different, but not at all bad Halloween

[7/10 · 31 August 2007]

This truly isn't a remake of Halloween, it's almost a different perspective of what is pretty much the same story. Instead of Laurie Strode as the main character, we get Michael. This aspect of the film is both intriguing and disappointing. Instead of spending most of it's time on Halloween night, Zombie's film spends about half the time building up to Halloween. The additional material isn't bad, it's actually pretty good, but it pushes out some of the original material that probably should have been kept in. The film almost plays as a companion to the original, just bloodier, more shocking, but missing some of the mood.

The first fifteen or twenty minutes are spent with Michael as a child, we see the events leading up to his first Halloween night. This is interesting, but some of it feels like it could have been shortened to make time for other things. Daeg Faerch does a very good job of portraying young Michael, and steals some of the scariest moments of the film. Loomis's role is expanded and humanized; Malcolm McDowell makes the role his own and in turn creates something that doesn't feel like a rip off of the Pleasence character. We're treated to his break out from the asylum, which is actually done better than the original, the mental hospital scene always felt like the weakest in the original. Rob Zombie's Michael Myers is huge, Tyler Mane stands 6'8" and gives the character a much more human, angry feel.

The biggest fault is that we don't see Laurie Strode until close to 40 minutes into the movie. Halloween night is tragically compacted and therefore loses a great deal of it's pacing. The movie, in an attempt to keep the running time down feels rushed. The characters of Annie and Linda are shrunk down to fifteen minute rolls, most of which is spent naked. There is one scene that exploits the Michael is there, and then he isn't gag that the original used so effectively. Scout Taylor-Compton does a good job playing Laurie, unfortunately most of her screen time is spent screaming, what would have been her character development, apparently happens off screen. In the end, she isn't the main character, Michael is. Zombie, attempting to cover all the ground he had to and keep the movie under two hours cut out a lot of the long, eerie shots that kept the mood of the original in such a profound place.

Zombie makes up for this by doing what he does best. Killing people. It might sound sick, but the death scenes in this movie are spectacular. It is very much a Rob Zombie film, that means it's very bloody. That also means, that no one just dies. They get stabbed, they crawl a little bit and then they get stabbed again. Michael kills much more physically in this movie, the original Michael seemed to have impossible super human strength, in this one you can almost see the struggle. The death sequences in the movie are fairly well spread out, they happen in three big chunks, young Michael, Asylum, Halloween night, giving you just enough time to breathe before the next set begins. Just like all Zombie films, the movie ends powerfully, but not necessarily effectively.

Overall, Rob Zombie's Halloween is an uneven, but not at all bad attempt at "reimagining" the series. Unlike most horror films, this one could have afforded to be a bit longer and leave more room for mood. The first forty five minutes are very good, the last fifty of them are spent trying to cram a ninety minute movie in the alloted time. In the end, does it hold a candle to the original, no. But it does hold it's own and does a very good job at creating a very different but still frightening Michael Myers. It's leaps and bounds better than the sequels, but definitely falls short of the original. This is a must for Halloween, and Rob Zombie fans. The film is intense, fast pace, and fiercely entertaining. It's not cinematic masterpiece, but it's absolutely a worthy addition to the series, and might just start up a new one.

War (2007)

Entertaining action movie despite a disappointing third act

[6/10 · 24 August 2007]

War walks in the footsteps of movies like Kiss of the Dragon, and the Transporter series. It blends martial arts with stylized shoot 'em up action fairly well to create visually stunning action sequences. One of War's strong points, is that none of these action sequences feel too contrived or pointless; most of them advance the plot in some matter. War attempts to blend it's action with a surprisingly compelling story line, the film's build up unfortunately falls apart in it's lack luster third act.

Jason Statham plays Jack Crawford, a special ops agent in L.A. (we never truly know the unit he's a part of, but face it, it's not important). L.A. is seeing the beginning of a gang war between two Japanese gangs, the Changs and the Triads. As he investigates, it soon becomes apparent that an assassin by the name of Rogue (Jet Li) is involved, the same assassin that killed Statham's partner 3 years ago. This story line seems to be the weaker one of two that are explored in the movie. The more intriguing one involves Rogue who seems to be playing on both sides of the playing field. This moves the movie forward as his dark agenda is slowly revealed.

The movie lends itself to some interesting fight sequences, shoot outs and sword fights. There is a brief chase sequence between Statham and Li, but it feels like an afterthought. The action is spread out well over the 100 minute running time, there are no real slow spots and yet unlike many of Statham's earlier works (Crank) it does give you a chance to breathe. We're treated to one or two exciting twists that tie up a lot of the intrigue before the final act. This is where War begins to slip, it is a very successful action thriller for the first ninety minutes, it's the brief closing that doesn't satisfy.

The ending feels forced and leaves you unsatisfied. It's unnecessarily bleak and doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie. They should have cut the final ten minutes of the movie and replaced them with a tighter ending. But, even accounting for this, War still succeeds in being a solid action thriller. Perhaps if it does well we'll be treated to a sequel that will pick up the pieces of the disappointing ending.

Superbad (2007)

One of the funniest movies of the year

[10/10 · 18 August 2007]

Superbad is essentially about two things: the first is friendship, the second is alcohol. The movie is very well made on several levels because it explores both aspects while cleverly disguising them with laugh out loud humor. Superbad centers around Seth and Evan who need to get alcohol for a party so they can get the girls of their dreams. This basic plot line allows for some intensely hilarious situations, many of them centering around their friend Fogell or "McLovin" and his experience with two policemen.

The film is very honest about itself and while the language and sexual explicitness is pumped up to a very high level, it depicts several aspects of high school life relatively well. The friendship between Seth and Evan feels real which keeps the film from becoming a cesspool of sex jokes and drugs. It also takes a very negative stance on alcohol, as apparent in the final scenes of the movie.

The film does not contain a great deal of nudity, but the sexual dialog is stretched to a maximum. The dialog becomes almost gratuitous at parts, but usually offers some very funny moments. There is not a weak link in the cast, Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Seth Rogen and others do a great job as does director Greg Mattola on his first big project.

Superbad is a pleasant mix of witty humor, gross out jokes, and surprising devotion to it's morals. It achieves something more than just a funny movie, following in the footsteps of Knocked Up and Forty Year Old Virgin, although this time with a very different feel. It if nothing else is incredibly funny and offers some great future talent both in front of and behind the camera.

Superman Returns (2006)

A refreshing revival of the classics

[7/10 · 2 July 2006]

When I saw Superman I of course had my doubts, being a fan of the originals. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.

Superman returns after a five year trip to the remnants of the planet Kripton. Meanwhile, Lex Luther has been released from prison because Superman did not testify in court; apparently no one else saw him try to break California off into the ocean. Now Lex has stumbled upon the Fortress of Solitude and stolen Krytonian crystals capable of creating matter, and thats just what he plans to do. Lex Luther wants to create a new continent and sell it of a prime real estate. This sounds a bit convoluted, and it is. But that doesn't really matter because it seems to be a subplot in this movie. The main focus is on Superman and Lois Lane (who now has a sickly six year old with her boyfriend)'s relationship.

The film does exactly what it should do. Show Superman parading throughout Metropolis (which looks a great deal like New York City and is even located in exactly the same spot). It follows the same formula as the other Superman films but differs from todays caped hero movies in a big way. From the moment he returns, people are happy to see him. For the past five years we've been watching movies about angsty superheroes who constantly debate whether what they're doing is right. Not in this movie, it's on the opposite spectrum from Spiderman 2, and rightfully so. This positive attitude is refreshing and helps the film work in a big way.

So, basically, Superman returns does nothing but create a solid Superman movie, and that's all it should do. Now all we need to do it ride out a few unsuccessful sequels, wait another 30 years and we'll get yet another great Superman film.

Sin City (2005)

One Wild Ride

[10/10 · 2 July 2006]

I was reluctant when I rented this movie because I had heard from several people it was terrible. But, it was guest directed by Quentin Tarantino. I then sat in my basement and for two straight hours was blown away.

It's hard to describe the plot of Sin City; it is three self contained stories that overlap ever so slightly in a bar scene. The first stars Mickey Rourke as Marv as he goes on a killing rampage to find the man who killed a hooker he'd been with the night before. The second stars Clive Owen as Dwight and Benicio Del Toro as Jackie Boy. In this segment Dwight has to stop the mob from getting possession of a cop's head in order to stop a outright civil war in Sin City. The third stars Bruce Willis as Hartigan and Jessica Alba as the illustrious Nancy Callahan; this story is about a child molester who terrorizes Nancy.

Sin City is one of the most unrelenting, non-stop, action movies I've ever seen. In essence it's noir at the top of it's game. The movie is a thrill ride from start to finish. The movie's a blood bath that looks at itself and has the audacity to laugh. The characters treat these outrageous situations with a dark sense of humor and twisted nobility. What the film does very well is blend realism with impossibility, for example, in Sin City it's impossible to kill someone. In one sequence a man gets hit by a car several times and walks away unscathed.

The movie is outrageous, unrelenting and just a lot of fun to watch. Shown in stylistic black and white, people will either love it or hate it. I, personally, find it to be one of the best films of the 21st century.

Halloween II (1981)

Not as good as the original but worth a look

[5/10 · 30 June 2006]

Halloween is probably the greatest slasher movie ever made and truly paved the way for Jason and every other serial killer that wears a mask. The sequel picks up just after Detective Loomis has shot Michael at the end of Halloween 1. Laurie Strode is then carted off to the hospital.

The main aspect of this film that fails is reality. The first film was in a very minute way plausible. In this film the setting is completely unbelievable and while it successfully carries the mood of the movie, it just doesn't match up to the original. The main character of this film by far is not Laurie, who has maybe a dozen lines, or Loomis, but Michael. For most of the movie we watch as Michael walk around through a very dark hospital as he slowly kills off nurses and doctors in various fashions.

It seems as if the director, Rick Rosenthal, was not trying to follow the original, but rather out do the slip-shod rip offs of Halloween. However, the movie is decently scary and while not as good as the original, still a classic in it's own right.