Robert_Hearth Reviews

The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning (2007 TV Movie)

The Dukes of Been There, Done That

[5/10 · 22 April 2007]

"The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning" (2007)

Directed By: Robert Berlinger

Starring: Jonathan Bennett, Randy Wayne, April Scott, Christopher McDonald, Willie Nelson, Harland Williams, & Joel Moore

MPAA Rating: "Unrated" (for sexual humor and dialogue)

***PLEASE NOTE: This Is A Review Of The "Unrated" Version Of The Movie***

After a long-running television series (that survived for six years and still remains a fan favorite) and a big-screen movie all based on the same material and the same characters, I believe we have seen everything that the Duke boys have to offer. We have seen countless chase scenes, the "General Lee" getting destroyed and resurrected over and over, and Daisy Duke in all of her glory. What else is there to show? Well, as "The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning" shows, not much. I have only seen bits and pieces of episodes from the original television series and, though it certainly is not the most intelligent piece of televised history, it is still a classic show that is entertaining. In 2005, its big-screen adaptation (starring Johnny Knoxville, Sean William Scott, and Jessica Simpson) was a moderate success despite critical pounding. I found it to be an average movie that, like its source material, lacked brains, but made up for it with its entertainment value. With, "The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning", nothing new is presented and everything seems recycled…but is it as fun as its predecessors?

Bo (Bennett) and Luke (Wayne) Duke have gotten into a spot of trouble and have been sent to live with their Uncle Jesse (Nelson) and their dowdy cousin, Daisy (Scott). Uncle Jesse is a farmer and a moonshiner who develops a huge rivalry with the most powerful man in town, the notorious Boss Hogg (McDonald), who is threatening to foreclose on Uncle Jesse's farm. I'll give you a little hint. This plot has been done before, both in the television series and the 2005 film. It is nothing new, but the real fun in "The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning" comes with how it explains the back story of Hazzard county. We are given explanations for the rivalry between the Dukes and Boss Hogg, Daisy's famous shorts, Flash, and, of course, the birth of the "General Lee". I enjoyed watching how everything came together…though I would have preferred to have seen it all happen in a plot that wasn't so completely recycled (and poorly assembled, I might add).

I liked the cast of the 2005 movie, even if Daisy Duke was a blonde. So, I was disappointed to see that only one person would be returning--Willie Nelson. Not surprisingly, Nelson gives the best performance in the movie. Jonathan Bennett is usually a good actor…but, here, he overacts in a few scenes. I found his portrayal of Bo to be rather average, which kind of disappointed me. Randy Wayne suffers from the same problem, though not quite as badly. His performance is okay. They were both too animated, unfortunately, giving the characters a slightly cartoonish feel. April Scott made me sympathize with Daisy, bringing more to the role than just a flawless body (though, she brought that too). I liked it. Christopher McDonald was a bad guy. I bought it. Harland Williams shocked me. He just didn't do anything for me. I could see how the screenwriters envisioned his performance (probably to be much like that of M.C. Gainey in the 2005 movie)…but, instead of playing it with even an ounce of evilness, he was goofy and comedic. He missed the point.

I want to make something very, very clear. "The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning" is not a quality film. It is cheesy, silly, and many of the scenes are just not plausible. I mean, did you know that a car can turn up on its side and drive on two wheels just by you turning the steering wheel…or that a pig can escape its pin, climb up onto the roof, and then prevent itself from falling just long enough for help to come? But, really, did anyone watch the original television series to see intellectual situations with strong messages. People watched the show to be entertained and, for that purpose (and that purpose only), "The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning" works. It may be a guilty pleasure…but the fun you will have here is comparable to that of the original show.

Final Thought: "The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning" will entertain the people who enjoyed the original show.

Overall Rating: 5/10 (B-)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)

It's Grisly, Violent, And Shockingly Gory But There Is Very Little Originality Or Creativity.

[7/10 · 15 April 2007]

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" (2006)

Directed By: Jonathan Liebesman

Starring: Jordana Brewster, Taylor Handley, Diora Baird, Matthew Bomer, R. Lee Ermey, Marietta Marich, Lee Tergesen, & Andrew Bryniarski

MPAA Rating: "Unrated" (for strong horror violence/gore, language and some sexual content)

***PLEASE NOTE: This Is A Review Of The "Unrated" Version Of The Movie***

In 1974, Tobe Hooper directed a low-budget slasher flick that sent shockwaves around the world and single-handedly revolutionized the horror genre. Gone were the classy, elegant genre films made famous by such great directors as Alfred Hitchcock. In their place, grittier and more violent slasher flicks began to be made. This opened the door for such classics as "Halloween", etc. Flash forward to 2003 and to the remake of this cult classic. Though critics shrugged it off, audiences flooded out to see it and many of them found it to be a fairly good remake. I thought it did an amazing job of recreating the fear and tension displayed in the original without copying it exactly. A prequel was announced soon after…with basically the same plot as both the original and the remake. I was hesitant at first…and I had a reason to be. What's the point of a prequel if it is the same thing as its predecessor? Well, "The Beginning" proves that it deserves to exist with its shocking gore, intense violence, and overall courage. Most movies produced by Hollywood don't have the bravery to show what this movie did…but this movie shows it all and takes pride in all of its gory goodness.

Dean (Handley) and Eric (Bomer) are two brothers who are heading across Texas to enlist in the army during the Vietnam War. Their girlfriends, Chrissie (Brewster) and Bailey (Baird), are along for the ride. When a car accident strands them in the Texas back roads, the friends encounter the infamous Hewitt family. Sheriff Hoyt (Ermey) happens upon the wreck site and takes Dean, Eric, and Bailey back to his home where he and his sadistic family proceeds to torture and terrorize the friends. But, he missed Chrissie who was thrown from the vehicle. When he desperate attempts to find help fail, Chrissie decides that she must take it upon herself to save her friends…but what she does not know is that the Hewitts are nurturing an even more brutal killer--a chainsaw-wielding, heartless killer who will come to be always known as Leatherface (Bryniarski). Aside from a few brief glimpses into the Hewitt family's history (i.e. how they found Leatherface and why they decided to eat humans), this is the same plot shown in the remake and the original.

Strong performances are the highlight of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" and, given that this is a slasher flick, that is quite unusual. Jordana Brewster makes for a sympathetic and relatable leading lady. I was a little disappointed that they didn't give her enough edge, though. She was a little too tame in comparison to Jessica Biel's character in the remake. Taylor Handley (who is probably best known for playing the psychotic Oliver in TV's "The O.C.") is a surprisingly competent actor. He completely proved here that he is versatile and talented. Diora Baird (who is probably best known for…well, being really attractive, I suppose) shows that she is more than a pretty face. She did a very good job here and really displayed an excellent range of emotion. Matthew Bomer was likable and believable. The guy worked well here. R. Lee Ermey again plays a really despicable villain and does it just as well. He is just a very great villain and aces the role. Andrew Bryniarski reprises his role as Leatherface and really gets the chance to add depth to the character here.

If you will remember, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003) took the basic plot of the original and completely made it a fresh, different story. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" does not do that. It takes the same plot as the remake, adds more gore and more blood, repackages it, and then sends it out for mass consumption. You will even notice similarities in the order people die (though, I will not go any further). This was obviously the most glaring problem with the movie…though the completely implausible and horribly predictable ending is yet another one. Anyone who didn't know how this movie was going to end obviously never realized it was a prequel and the filmmakers, knowing this, should have taken the opportunity to throw a twist into the ring. Instead, they delivered the clichéd finale that made no sense whatsoever. But, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" does keep its recycled plot fresh enough to warrant a watch. It's excessive, but well-executed gore and violence make the movie a chilling and difficult watch. I often hear that originality is dead in Hollywood…and this movie is certainly a testament to that. But, if I want to see a rip-off, I want to see one like this, which at least managed to pump its old plot with sympathetic characters and plenty of blood and gore.

Final Thought: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" replaces originality with good old-fashioned violence.

Overall Rating: 7/10 (B+)

Marcus (2006)

A Prime Example Of How A Bad Ending Can Ruin A Good Movie

[3/10 · 15 April 2007]

"Marcus" (2006)

Directed By: Bob Hardison & Rich Robinson

Starring: Ross Kurt, Marc Rose, Scoot McNairy, Jade Dornfeld, Samantha Shelton, & Frankie Ingrassia

MPAA Rating: "Not Rated"

Roger (Rose) is a troubled young man who returns home for Christmas to try to patch up his relationship with his sister, Brooke (Ingrassia). He brings with him his new fiancée, Gwen (Dornfeld). Brooke's friend, Charles (McNairy) also shows up…with Roger's ex-girlfriend, Kate (Shelton). But, when they all arrive, they find that Brooke is mysteriously missing and her supposed boyfriend, Marcus (Kurt), has taken her place. What they do not know is that, as they bicker and argue, Brooke has been tied up in the bathroom with her head smashed open and that Marcus has plans for each of them. Everyone has something to hide and, before the night is over, everything will be exposed. As tensions mount and the guests realize that there is something wrong about the entire evening, Marcus unleashes his violent and terrifying plan that will shake them all to their cores and reveals his ultimate deception. 'Tis the season to eat, drink, and die merrily.

I had never heard of "Marcus" prior to my viewing of it and I didn't even realize that it had been released on DVD here in the United States until just a few hours ago. For the first hour or so of "Marcus", I was completely enamored with the various dramatic happenings that plagued the characters and the various ties that brought them all together. As secrets began to unfold and motives were revealed, I kept anticipating the ending more and more. I could not wait to see how the movie was going to draw everything to a close. Who is Marcus? Why is he there? How is he connected to these four people? Then, the movie ended…and everything fell apart. There was a glaring lack of a comprehensive or even passable conclusion. Very little was explained and the ending actually makes us have more questions than answers. The problem is that we were never given enough information to make our own assumptions. In the end, "Marcus" just didn't gel.

I liked the performances in "Marcus" for the most part. Ross Kurt plays the title character or Marcus and I have mixed feelings about the overall performance. On one hand, I thought he did a fine job at the beginning, balancing regularity with evilness…but, by the end, I really wanted him to branch out and really show the darkness behind the character. It never happened, unfortunately. Marc Rose gives an emotional, vulnerable showing, especially at the ending. I was quite surprised. Scoot McNairy (love the name, by the way) does a fine job. It was a standard performance. Jade Dornfeld and Samantha Shelton weren't really given that much to do and, like McNairy, gave rather average performances. Nothing very difficult was required of either of them, but they handled the easy stuff well enough. Frankie Ingrassia (love that name too) has shockingly limited screen time, though she plays a very pivotal role. She hit the nail on the head and really made me sympathize with her character despite not being on screen much. I bought it.

It is very rare that a movie completely wins me over and then, in the final fifteen minutes, completely loses me…but "Marcus" did just that. I was quite bitter when the end credits rolled and I simply sat there, staring at the screen in disbelief and disgust. What started off as a mature, character-driven suspense thriller quickly dissolved into a bland, pointless, and completely pretentious mess. In deciding how I should write this review and whether or not I should recommend this little title, I knew that I had to be as straight-forward as possible. I could not beat around the bush. I enjoyed this movie for the first hour and then hated it after that. I do not recommend it in any sense of the word and I can't even say that you should watch the beginning and then turn it off before the ending because half of the fun of the beginning was trying to figure out how the film would end. I now know why I had never heard of this movie before…but now I can only wish that I had never seen it.

Final Thought: "Marcus" falls apart in the last act.

Overall Rating: 3/10 (C)

Grindhouse (2007)

This Rodriguez/Tarantino Double-Feature Successfully Revives The Long-Dead Grindhouse

[9/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Grindhouse" (2007)

Directed By: Robert Rodriguez & Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Rose McGowan, Kurt Russell, Freddy Rodriguez, Marley Shelton, Zoe Bell, Rosario Dawson, Stacy Ferguson, Josh Brolin, Naveen Andrews, Michael Biehn, Tracie Thoms, Vanessa Ferlito, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jordan Ladd, & Bruce Willis

MPAA Rating: "R" (for strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use)

GRIND HOUSE (n): A theater playing back-to-back films exploiting sex, violence, and other extreme subject matter.

In the 1970's, Grindhouse theaters became quite popular. They showed the films that most regular theaters would not show due to their extreme subject matter. Two of Hollywood's best directors, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, team up to direct a double-feature reminiscent of those old theaters with fake trailers put in between. For the trailers, Rodriguez and Tarantino recruited Eli Roth (director of "Hostel" and "Cabin Fever"), Edgar Wright (director of "Shaun of the Dead"), and Rob Zombie (director of "House of 1000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects"). Robert Rodriguez directed the first film, "Planet Terror", while Quentin Tarantino directed the second film, "Death Proof". I'll break this review into three parts: "Planet Terror", "Death Proof", and the trailers.

PLANET TERROR: Robert Rodriguez's segment is easily the superior of the two films and will probably end up being the best horror movie of the year. He strives to make a gloriously bad movie and it works because it acknowledges the badness and uses this knowledge to inject humor and fun into the film. The plot is simplistic: a chemical is released into the air and begins to turn the world's population into a horde of flesh-eating zombies while a small group of people try to survive. It is, surprisingly, one of the best zombie films I have ever seen, delivering plenty of gore and tons of entertainment. On the slight downside, I thought there were a few too many survivors by the end of the movie and that Rodriguez could have knocked off a few more.

DEATH PROOF: Quentin Tarantino's segment suffers predominately from a heavy, dialog-drenched beginning that stretches all the way to the last twenty minutes. At first, I wondered if perhaps Tarantino missed the point of Grindhouse cinema…and then the last scene kicked in and I completely understand. What started off as a character-driven melodrama became a high-octane thrill-ride that's success or failure ultimately rested on whether or not we could relate to the characters on the screen. Due to Tarantino's seemingly weighty first half, we could feel for our characters and we did care about what happened to them. The only problem is that all of the dialog became quite dull while it was all happening and could have been taken up a notch with a bit more gratuitous violence (after all, that is what made Grindhouse theaters famous).

FAKE TRAILERS: The fake trailers that played in between the two films are probably the highlight of the movie with Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" being my favorite. It was deliciously over-the-top and inappropriate and kept me chuckling the entire time. Edgar Wright's "Don't" is another very entertaining one, though it obviously has no plot and no real point. Robert Rodriguez's "Machete" (starring the always cool Danny Trejo) is also a very fun trailer that captures the Grindhouse edge. The low point of the movie, surprisingly, is Rob Zombie's trailer for "Werewolf Women of the SS", which didn't capitalize on the werewolf angle enough. However, it was still entertaining enough to work. It just isn't up to Rob Zombie's standards (at least those set by "The Devil's Rejects") and is more on the level of his disappointing "House of 1000 Corpses".

Final Thought: Overall, "Grindhouse" is a great movie and far more fun that any movie released so far this year. It delivers bloody action and tight thrills with that Grindhouse grunge as only Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino could do it.

~ "Planet Terror": 10/10 (A+) ~ "Death Proof": 9/10 (A) ~ Fake Trailers: 9/10 (A)

Overall Rating: 9/10 (A)

Children of Men (2006)

"Your Baby Is The Miracle The Whole World Has Been Waiting For." --- Jasper (Michael Caine)

[10/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Children of Men" (2006)

Directed By: Alfonso Cuarón

Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Pam Ferris, & Peter Mullan

MPAA Rating: "R" (for strong violence, language, some drug use and brief nudity)

When "Children of Men" ended, I left the theater, feeling drained, depressed, and yet oddly content. Because, after nearly two hours of watching death, destruction, and war, we are left with an uplifting finale--an ending that, despite all of the atrocities we have witnessed, has a glimmer of hope. "Children of Men" is one of the most beautiful movies I have seen all year, being both completely enthralling and visually arresting. Sporting superb performances from Clive Owen and Claire-Hope Ashitey and the rest of the cast and one of the most intriguing premises presented this year, "Children of Men" is a massive achievement in movie-making. It is one of the strongest, most poignant films imaginable. It is an effective film, but, with that said, I must admit that its effect is very disturbing. In my theater, two people walked out and I suspect that it was because they could not handle the shocking material presented here. I, however, could not have left for I could never have pulled my eyes off of the screen. Moving and ultimately chilling, "Children of Men" is a must-see film.

In 2027, the world is in a very chaotic state. No more children are being born and the world's youngest person has just died at the age of eighteen. Theo (Owen) just wants to live out his life without much trouble…until his ex-wife, Julian (Moore), comes and asks for his help. She introduces him to Kee (Ashitey), a young woman who is miraculously pregnant. Julian, a known rebel and target for the police, tells Theo that he must take Kee to a sanctuary at the sea where a group of scientists can hopefully use Kee's birth as a way to save the future of mankind. But, as Theo makes his way across the war-torn country into the very bowels of a hellish world, he will discover that, even in the darkest days of what could be the end of the world, there are still people who care…and that what we once all took for granted is now our only hope.

Academy Award nominee, Clive Owen seems to be making movie after movie…after movie…after movie. I'm a big fan of most of his movies, from "Closer" to "Inside Man", and I feel that "Children of Men" is his best film to date. He gives a raw, unfiltered performance. I think that many actors seem to calculate their actions and how they say dialog prior to making the movie, but that does not appear to be Owen's technique here. His performance is steeped in realism. Julianne Moore got second billing despite having very limited screen time. I thought that her casting was purely brilliant. Moore is a big-name actress and it's great to see an actress of her caliber taking a limited role in a film. It gives the film an element of surprise that is reminiscent of what Alfred Hitchcock did in "Psycho" (1960). I love Michael Caine and he gives a great performance here. The real gem for me, however, is Claire-Hope Ashitey. The marketing executives of "Children of Men" practically ignored her when cutting trailers, making posters, and creating TV spots and yet she proves to be an amazing, beautiful actress who gives a perfectly credible and sympathetic performance. It worked so well. She completely blew me away.

As I have said, people left my theater before finishing the movie. "Children of Men" is not for everyone. Sensitive viewers will probably want to stay away and, even if all of the language and the brief glimpse of nudity were removed, it certainly isn't for young audiences. It is a shocking and depressing movie that rockets through violence, terror, and war to finally deliver a slightly hopeful ending. I am not often left completely speechless by a movie, but, when "Children of Men" ended, I really didn't feel like talking. I needed time to digest what I had seen and to truly comprehend everything. "Children of Men" is a must-see for mature viewers who can handle it. It is truly an amazing, brilliant movie that affects you emotionally. It's unlike anything I have ever seen before…and, in a world where most movies are clichéd rip-offs or remakes, that comment speaks volumes about a movie.

Final Thought: A thought-provoking and emotionally-resonant film, "Children of Men" delivers a haunting, yet amazing story.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)

The Illusionist (2006)

"Everything You Have Seen Here Has Been An Illusion." --- Eisenheim (Edward Norton)

[9/10 · 14 April 2007]

"The Illusionist" (2006)

Directed By: Neil Burger

Starring: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell, & Eddie Marsan

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some sexuality and violence)

I had heard wonderful things about "The Illusionist" from all of my friends so I was very excited to get the chance to see it. With its great cast, it looked like one of the best movies of the year. But, I'll be honest; I've been so disappointed with many movies this year so I was a little hesitant. I am sick of being disappointed, but that seems to be what most Hollywood films do lately. So, I was very surprised when "The Illusionist" turned out to be…well, a beautiful and great movie that kept me thinking without completely losing me. It is a magical and deeply-involving film that is brought to life with vivid imagination and colorful direction, giving the film a surreal aura of mystery. This is what movies are supposed to be.

Edward Norton stars as Eisenheim, a talented magician who captivates the world with his magnificent illusions that are unlike anything anyone has seen before. When he was younger, he fell deeply in love with Sophie (Jessica Biel), a girl who is far above his social standing. The two were told that they can never be together and, for years, it seemed as though this were true…until Sophie happened to attend one of Eisenheim's performances. But, she is engaged to marry Crown Prince Leopold…and it seems as though there love is destined to be forgotten. But, Sophie still harbors much love for Eisenheim and Leopold reveals himself to be a greed-filled, power-hungry man who wants nothing but power. Eisenheim, desperate to be with Sophie, plans his greatest illusion yet…one that will shock the entire city and make everyone question what they have seen.

Great performances fill "The Illusionist" with the highlight being, of course, Edward Norton. Norton does not overplay the part and, instead, does the complete opposite. He underplays it, lending to his character's mystery and intrigue. Jessica Biel makes for a beautiful and sympathetic love interest for Eisenheim. She shows that she is a versatile actress who can do more than just beat the crap out of a chainsaw-wielding maniac while wearing a wet, white tank top. Paul Giamatti, fresh off of the disaster that was "Lady in the Water", gives a solid performance here. Rufus Sewell is wonderfully villainous as Crown Prince Leopold. He gives a confident, fulfilling performance that I thought worked very well.

"The Illusionist" is not a perfect film, however. I, personally, thought the plot twist was quite easy to figure out. I've never been one to brag about being able to guess endings to movies, because I don't typically know what is going to happen until it does. But, "The Illusionist" was different. I felt that everything was quite obviously leading up to the big twist. This isn't a horrible thing, but it lessened the "big reveal" for me. But, a predictable twist is hardly the worst thing that could happen to a movie. The remainder of "The Illusionist" more than makes up for it and makes the film a well-told, beautiful, and deeply magical story brought to life with brilliant direction and superb performances. If you haven't seen "The Illusionist", then you are doing yourself a grave disservice. It is a movie that everyone should be watching.

Final Thought: "The Illusionist" is a brilliant film.

Overall Rating: 9/10 (A)

The Marine (2006)

"Would Somebody Please Shoot This Guy!" --- Rome (Robert Patrick)

[5/10 · 14 April 2007]

"The Marine" (2006)

Directed By: John Bonito

Starring: John Cena, Kelly Carlson, Robert Patrick, Abigail Bianca, Anthony Ray Parker, & Manu Bennett

MPAA Rating: "Unrated" (for intense sequences of violent action, sensuality and language)

***PLEASE NOTE: This Is A Review Of The "Unrated" Version Of The Movie***

Just recently, I gave "See No Evil" a passing grade, despite labeling it as "one of the most clichéd and stereotypical slasher flicks ever devised". I mention "See No Evil" in a review for this because they are both movies produced by WWE Films and both suffer from the same exact problem, yet both have gained my recommendation for the exact same thing. "The Marine" is one of the most clichéd and stereotypical action flicks ever devised (Does that sound familiar?). It stars John Cena, another wrestler trying to prove that he can act, and exists solely to have him survive as many explosive situations and kill as many bad guys as possible. Unsurprisingly, "The Marine" has very few new or innovative ideas to offer, which is why most people could simply skip this movie altogether and never even realize that they had missed it. However, it doesn't necessarily make for a boring watch and is certain to entertain casual moviegoers to some extent…though, said extent is probably not very far at all.

John Triton (Cena) is a recently-dismissed marine who was sent home after failing to follow orders. Kate Triton (Carlson) is his beautiful and beloved wife who supports him no matter and desires only to make him happy. Rome (Patrick) is a cruel and ruthless diamond thief who will betray anyone in order to line his own pockets. Angela (Bianca) is a cold-hearted killer who exists to serve Rome, her lover. When John and Kate are on their way to the mountains for a relaxing vacation, they happen to stop at the same gas station as Rome and Angela and their other henchmen, who have just pulled off a huge diamond heist. After a Rome's trigger-happy assistant, Morgan (Parker), shoots and kills a cop, Rome and his entourage destroy the gas station, leave John for dead, and kidnap Kate. But, John is not dead…and he will do anything to save his wife. Suddenly, all hell breaks loose as John goes on a wild and explosive adventure to find his wife and bring her back home. But, what he doesn't know is that someone he thought he could trust…is working for his greatest enemy.

The performances in "The Marine" are average at best, but they didn't really need to be any better. I didn't go into this movie thinking that it was going to have any Academy Award worthy performances. John Cena is best known (okay, so only known) for his long-time role in "WWE Monday Night RAW". Now, professional wrestlers are not typically good actors by any means. They are typically flat, emotionless cardboard cut-outs with muscles. Glen "Kane" Jacobs proved that he had what it took to portray a bloodthirsty serial killer with conviction in "See No Evil" so I was slightly optimistic for Cena's breakout role. Well, I got an average, but believable performance. He did a decent job. Kelly Carlson who is incredibly gorgeous, in my opinion, and quite talented also does a nice job. She first caught my attention with her provocative role in "Nip/Tuck" and she shows here that she can transition between television and film. Robert Patrick plays yet another villainous role…I mean, really, this is getting very predictable. I guess he does what he is good at, because he too does fine. But, the guy really needs to start taking more diverse roles.

The biggest problem with "The Marine", aside from its glaring lack of originality and creativity, is the overall ridiculousness of the action. When things explode in this film, they explode and destroy everything for miles around…except for our hero who is thrown several feet by the explosion into safety. Our hero is tossed around, thrown out of a car that is burning and flying off of a cliff, practically blown up, shot at (by assault rifles), and more and yet he remains almost completely unscathed. What, is he a robot, for crying out loud? On top of that, the music used in the movie is almost excruciating…seriously. This is the first time in a long time where I actually thought that the music almost ruined the movie. It was dreadful…and the random bits of humor and quirky moments were even worse. The recurring jokes about rock candy had me rolling my eyes and there are other jokes that get old just as fast. The dialog, itself, is horrendous and deeply false. However, "The Marine" didn't need good dialog to be a decent action movie, because, let's face it, a typical action movie replaces any substance it should have had with senseless violence and action. This is not necessarily a good movie, but it is entertaining enough to warrant a watch. But, just like with so many movies released lately, do not expect anything new.

Final Thought: Ridiculously over-the-top and silly, "The Marine" manages to get my recommendation because it is more fun than it should be.

Overall Rating: 5/10 (B-)

Black Christmas (2006)

"I'd Like To Bury The Hatchet With My Sister Right In Her Head!" --- Dana (Lacey Chabert)

[7/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Black Christmas" (2006)

Directed By: Glen Morgan

Starring: Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Lacey Chabert, Kristen Cloke, Andrea Martin, Crystal Lowe, & Kyle Hudson

MPAA Rating: "R" (for strong horror violence and gore, sexuality, nudity and language)

In 1974, a low-budget horror film named "Black Christmas" came and…well, in all honesty, it was completely ignored. In fact, it has never really had the recognition it deserves, except from the most hardcore horror fans. People remember "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"…but hardly anyone remembers "Black Christmas" even though it practically invented the slasher genre. I have always been a huge fan of the classic and I recently got my "Special Edition" DVD…for a Christmas present, ironically enough. And how did I decide to spend the day after Christmas, you ask? Well, watching the remake in a crowded theater, of course. I didn't expect anything from this movie. After all, it was a remake and, on top of that, it had several reported re-shoots (something that often means greedy studio execs decided to ignore the filmmakers' original wishes). However, I knew that, if nothing else, this movie had an ample cast and a wonderful director behind it. So, did this remake completely blow me away like the original…or was it frozen in its tracks?

If you have ever seen the original movie, then you know the plot for this. A group of sorority sisters, including Kelli (Cassidy) and Melissa (Trachtenberg), and their house mother, Ms. Mac (Martin), are all celebrating the Christmas season, when a series of increasingly threatening phone calls ruins the party. They soon discover that a brutal and terrifying killer has come home for Christmas and is killing them off one by one. In the original, the killer is never identified. His motives are never even mentioned and he is never really seen, except when masked in shadows. This remake doesn't want to hide who the killer is or why he or she desires to kill the girls. We are given all sorts of flashbacks and everything about the killer's past is revealed. While most fans of the original detest this fact and feel that this is just another example of how cinema is being dumbed down for audiences, I don't necessarily mind. This movie reminds me of horror films from the eighties. It gives us a killer and his motives…and then a cast of victims for him to kill. Like those, this movie isn't scary and it isn't particularly intelligent, but it is fun and entertaining enough…not to mention, perfectly gruesome and violent.

The gore in this movie is ratcheted up a lot in comparison to the original. In fact, this movie is a slap in the face to all of the other PG-13 horror films released lately and has some actual brevity. "Black Christmas" (2006) features some of the bloodiest and most violent deaths to be showcased in a horror movie this year. Gore-hounds will have a very merry Christmas, as they get everything from eyeballs being pulled out, severed heads, various amputations, impalings, stabbings, and more blood splatters to count. In an age when PG-13 horror films have been dominating cinemas, I am glad to see a movie with a hardcore R-rating. Though not as shocking as such films as "The Hills Have Eyes" (2006), "Hostel", and "Haute Tension", for a movie aimed predominately at teen audiences, it seems as though filmmakers have finally realized that teenagers can handle a little bit of blood in horror movies. Many people in my theater were squealing in revulsion and I suspect that, for general audiences, this is quite shocking.

When "Black Christmas" (2006) ended, I realized that it paled in comparison to the original and replaced any tension and suspense with blood and gore, but that it was still a competent enough slasher flick. Simple and entertaining, "Black Christmas" (2006) is reminiscent of such eighties slasher flicks as "Terror Train", "Prom Night", and the many "Friday the 13th" sequels. Do not expect to see this at the Academy Awards, but, as far as modern slasher flicks go, you could do worse. "Black Christmas" (2006) is a fun, entertaining, darkly-humorous, bloody, gruesome, and violent slasher flick that sports decent performances, some stylish direction from Glen Morgan, and a lightning-quick pace. My biggest problem is that the ending is a little too drawn out and I feel that everything should have been brought to a close within the sorority house rather than taking it to a nearby hospital. On top of that, there was a little unnecessary melodrama right at the beginning that didn't mean a hill of beans by the end. But, overall, "Black Christmas" (2006) will be finding a place on my shelf right next to its predecessor…if only for the entertainment factor (and, really, that's all there is…but that is enough).

Final Thought: "Black Christmas" (2006) doesn't revolutionize the genre as its predecessor did, but it's a fun and immensely entertaining movie.

Overall Rating: 7/10 (B+)

Hollywoodland (2006)

"Nobody Ever Asks To Be Happy Later." --- Toni Mannix (Diane Lane)

[10/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Hollywoodland" (2006)

Directed By: Allen Coulter

Starring: Adrien Brody, Diane Lane, Ben Affleck, Bob Hoskins, Robin Tunney, & Lois Smith

MPAA Rating: "R" (for language, some violence and sexual content)

The life of George Reeves (Affleck) has been under intense media scrutiny ever since June 16, 1959—the night in which Reeves died of a gunshot wound to the head. Police immediately assumed that the wound was self-inflicted and the case was, almost just as quickly, closed. Reeves starred as the Man of Steel, himself, in the hit series, "Adventures of Superman". When he died, hundreds of children around the nation were devastated and were forced to face the harsh reality of the world—something that they had long been ignoring with the assistance of the television. The thought that Reeves would kill himself was unbelievable…but was it a little too unbelievable? This is the story with which "Hollywoodland" is concerned. Gloomy gumshoe, Louis Simo (Brody) is hired by Reeves's mother, Helen Bessolo (Smith), to investigate his death, believing that Reeves was actually murdered. Simo agrees to take the high-profile case and begins to dig deep into secrets that were never meant to be uncovered. He discovers that Reeves was not the squeaky-clean hero that he portrayed. He was a dark, brooding man who could never find happiness and was carrying on an affair with Toni Mannix (Lane), the wife of Eddie Mannix (Hoskins), the head of MGM. He despised his role as Superman, feeling that no one took him seriously after the role. Simo also discovered that, not only was Reeves a deeply troubled man, but that he had made many enemies, including his own fiancé, Leonore Lemmon (Tunney).

I had been anticipating "Hollywoodland" for quite some time and felt that it had the potential to become a major Oscar-contender this year. I had to drive two hours out of my way to find a theater that carried it, but I simply could not allow myself to miss this movie. During this rather lengthy drive, I could not help but worry. Would "Hollywoodland" really live up to my anticipations or would it become one of my biggest disappointments of the year? Could Ben Affleck actually star in a movie that wasn't a complete waste of time? I arrived just in time for the one o'clock matinée showing and the theater was moderately filled…mainly with elderly couples who, no doubt, watched "Adventures of Superman" during its television run. I settled down in my seat, my anticipation (and my apprehension) mounting with every passing moment. Did I get what I wanted? Did the movie live to my extremely high expectations? After pondering the movie for quite some time, I can safely say that, yes, it did live up to my expectations and that it is easily one of my favorite movies of the year. The performances are absolutely astounding, the direction is taught and beautiful, and the writing is quick, witty, and fresh. Every element of "Hollywoodland" comes together so nicely and that is extremely rare in movies today.

Adrien Brody stars as the sleazy private investigator, Louis Simo, and gives an outstanding performance. He is constantly reinventing himself in roles, but, whether he is playing a writer facing a giant gorilla or a dodgy investigator, I always expect greatness. Diane Lane gives her best performance yet and that is saying something, as she is one of the best actresses working today. She reaches emotional peaks not present in any of her other roles and she handles them all so beautifully. Ben Affleck has not been the poster child for good cinema over the past few years, after roles in such films as "Surviving Christmas" and "Gigli". When he was announced as Reeves, many people scoffed at the casting and laughed off the movie entirely. I, at first, highly doubted this casting, but hoped that this would be the role that turned his career around. Fortunately, Affleck proved that he still does have talent and gives a wonderful performance. I did not know he had it in him, but he performs as though all of those other debacles never existed. Bob Hoskins is a great actor and he continues to prove that here, with a rather small (compared to the roles of Brody, Lane, and Affleck), but pivotal role. I expected nothing less and was not disappointed. The cast, as a whole, is the highlight of the film and has no distinguishable weak spots.

Things are not perfect in this land, however, as there were some pacing problems and the movie is about thirty minutes too long. There was a subplot (concerning one of Simo's clients) that could have easily been remove altogether, which would have cut the running time down by about twenty minutes. However, in the long run, the few pacing problems and the unnecessary subplot did not detract away from the overall quality of the film and I was actually quite glad that George Reeves's story was not rushed. Why the filmmakers felt the need to interrupt his story with a useless subplot is beyond me, but the story is still told…and told beautifully. The casting was flawless and Allen Coulter's direction is superb. I loved this movie. It represents everything that is right with cinema today and shows that Hollywood isn't completely incapable of making a truly great movie. I definitely recommend "Hollywoodland", if only for the astounding performances. If you are sick of all of the big-budget action films of the summer and just want to see a deeper, more story-oriented film to cool off, then you will do no better than "Hollywoodland". It is the epitome of the opposite of a summer action film…and, frankly, I am happy for that.

Final Thought: Diane Lane and Ben Affleck have never been better than in this amazing drama.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)

Rocky Balboa (2006)

"The Only Kind Of Respect That Matters Is Self-Respect" --- Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone)

[9/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Rocky Balboa" (2006)

Directed By: Sylvester Stallone

Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Burt Young, Antonio Tarver, Geraldine Hughes, Milo Ventimiglia, Tony Burton, & Talia Shire

MPAA Rating: "PG" (for boxing violence and some language)

Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) is back after years of retirement. A few years after the death of his beloved wife, Adrian (Shire), a computer-generated match between him and the biggest boxing champion of the time, Mason "The Line" Dixon (Tarver), excites many people. Could Rocky really beat Dixon or has the world of boxing become just too difficult for him? Rocky, who was once perfectly content with just living for his community and for his restaurant, Adrian's, suddenly becomes very antsy and he knows that he must return to the sport he loves…one last time. When it was announced that this famous boxer would be going back into the ring after nearly sixteen years in retirement, the idea became a universal joke. After "Basic Instinct 2" (a sequel that came fourteen years after the original) was slammed by critics and became a financial disaster (opening number 10 on the charts and only grossing a measly $5 million--it did slightly better on DVD), one would think that studios would get the hint…yet a sixth installment would be coming (not to mention yet another sequel in Stallone's equally-popular "Rambo" franchise"). I, always up for anything, was quite indifferent to the decision. It just didn't matter to me…but I was willing to give it a chance. Heck, I'm a big fan of Stallone and am just glad to see him in something other than "Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over". So, did "Rocky Balboa" become the surprise hit that Stallone deserved…or did it become just another installment in the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart right beside "Rocky V"?

"Rocky Balboa" completely surprised me. I expected a cheesy, clichéd, predictable, money-hungry sequel thrown out to attract a few million people…but, like I said, I was willing to give it a chance. After all, Stallone actually got me to watch reality TV with his interesting reality show, "The Contender", so I had faith in him…not so much in Hollywood, but faith in him. Stallone didn't disappoint. This movie is surprisingly original and completely different from any of the other "Rocky" installments. It is not a boxing movie. It's a movie about dealing with aging and loss and learning to love again, even if it is a different kind of love. It's completely implausible, but you won't care, because the movie is engaging enough and heartfelt enough to make you feel that anything is possible. There is a single quote mentioned in this film that seems to sum everything up: "The last thing to age on somebody is their heart". "Rocky Balboa" proves that this statement is completely true. This movie may not have the machismo, the muscles, or the brawn of the previous movies, but its heart is exceptionally large and very prevalent.

The only performance we should really concern ourselves with here is that of Sylvester Stallone. After all, he is playing the title character and there are only a few very brief scenes that do not have him in them. The good news is that Stallone is on the top of his game. The man may have aged quite a bit since "Rocky V", but, what he has lost in muscles, he has gained in talent. If you have seen any interview with him about this film, you can actually feel his passion for this project. Not only does he do a wonderful job acting, his direction and writing prove that he is more multi-talented than I ever gave him credit for. Burt Young returns and, like Stallone, he shows that he is still connected to his part. He works so wonderfully well that you forget that he is an actor. Antonio Tarver was good…not great, but, as this was his first major role, he performed well enough. Sure, he may have scowled a little too much and I didn't feel anything for his character, but he did what he could. Geraldine Hughes and Milo Ventimiglia both do nice jobs. Hughes's Marie makes for a nice female friend to Stallone's Rocky, without trying to take the place of Talia Shire. Ventimiglia strangely resembled Stallone. Their chemistry just clicked. They felt like a father and son. It was quite mesmerizing actually.

If "Rambo IV: Pearl of the Cobra" is as good as "Rocky Balboa", then Stallone will have proved indefinitely that he is a forced to be reckoned with amongst Hollywood's elite. He may not be Oscar gold, but he certainly has talent and not just in acting. His direction is fresh, engaging, and intriguing without looking sappy and stylized. His writing brings heart to the film and had me emotionally-invested in the characters. His performance…well, it was phenomenal. On the very small downside, I had the ending predicted quite early on and it disappointed me with the way it was handled. Another thing was that Rocky's opposition, Tarver's Dixon, was a little mixed in the way that he was portrayed. In some scenes, he came off as snobbish, arrogant, and rude and, in others, he seemed like a sympathetic character that deserved our respect. It just didn't work for me. But, when everything was said and done, "Rocky Balboa" was a wonderful way to end this series, proving once and for all that Rocky Balboa is an iconic piece of Hollywood film-making--a character that should be cherished for generations to come.

Final Thought: "Rocky Balboa" was a fantastic way to end the "Rocky" franchise.

Overall Rating: 9/10 (A)

Dreamgirls (2006)

"You Stopped Me Once, But You'll Never Stop Me Again." --- Effie White (Jennifer Hudson)

[10/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Dreamgirls" (2006)

Directed By: Bill Condon

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles, Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy, Anika Noni Rose, Danny Glover, Keith Robinson, & Sharon Leal

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for language, some sexuality and drug content)

For the first time ever, I heard thunderous applause during a movie in theaters. I have heard people clapping at the end of movies before and even at the beginning (yes, at any of the "Star Wars" films), but never in the middle. If you have seen "Dreamgirls", then you know which scene of which I speak. It is Jennifer Hudson's powerhouse rendition of "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going". This crucial scene in this uplifting movie is when I realized that "Dreamgirls" was not merely a movie, but the birth of a superstar. Hudson may have lost the "American Idol" crown, but she gained so much more. During her season on the popular reality show, Hudson was my pick and I was devastated when she was eliminated…and far too early, I might add. Ironically enough, the winner of that season, Fantasia Barrino, was also up for the role of Effie White. Barrino did not get the role. Hudson did…and thank goodness for that. Hudson aced the role with her powerful vocals and her straight-forward, vulnerable acting ability. "Dreamgirls" may not be the best movie of the year (though, it is up in the top tier), but Hudson may very well have given the performance that will be remembered for years to come. She's aiming to win over the hearts of movie lovers everywhere--and I know she has won mine even more so than before.

Deena Jones (Knowles), Effie White (Hudson), and Lorrell Robinson (Rose) are members of a struggling girl band who get the chance of a lifetime when Curtis Taylor Jr. (Foxx) gives them the chance to do back-up for legendary James "Thunder" Early (Murphy). As the three girls skyrocket into fame and fortune, Effie soon finds herself being edged out in exchange for Deena. As tensions reach a climax and the three best friends find themselves drifting apart, drama erupts and once-sturdy friendships crumble--all for the price of fame. But, through all the arguing and even a tragic death, the girls will learn that fame isn't everything and that the dreams they had been struggling to fulfill…are only true if they are together. Fame comes and goes, stars rise and fall, but dreams live forever. Based on the Broadway musical, "Dreamgirls" tells its story with spectacular performances, an all-star cast, and powerful music. This triumphant film will have you clapping, crying, and smiling when you leave. It is the epitome of an uplifting film that will have you seeing stars.

The performances in "Dreamgirls" are easily the highlight of the movie. Jamie Foxx, fresh off of the decent "Miami Vice", the ho-hum "Jarhead", and the amazing "Ray" (for which he won an Academy Award), gives one of his best performances here. He dominates the role of the sleazy Curtis and exudes arrogance and corruption. Beyonce Knowles is probably best known for her amazing voice…and for starring in an Austin Powers movie, but she proves here that she really can act. Forget "Goldmember". Knowles is Deena Jones. The star of this show, however, is Jennifer Hudson who garnered much applause throughout the movie. She has put her "American Idol" loss behind her and has proved that she is a multi-talented superstar that can give a powerhouse performance. Her voice is awe-inducing and her acting is mesmerizing. Eddie Murphy gives his best performance in a very long time. I didn't know what to expect. Murphy has always been an iffy actor for sometimes. Sometimes he is good, but, other times, he just doesn't work for me. Here, he is very good. Someone who hasn't been getting much press for her role, but certainly deserves more is Anika Noni Rose. Rose did a very nice job and should be commended. Somehow, unfortunately, she got lost in all of the star power behind this movie. Don't worry, though, she hits every note flawlessly.

"Dreamgirls" is a movie fan's dream and one of my favorite movies of the year. But, it isn't completely perfect. The movie starts off with a very rapid pace, but it loses steam a little too early. Thus, the second half is a little long-winded. But, overall, "Dreamgirls" is a massive achievement in movie-making--the best musical since "Chicago". It's breathtaking, wonderful, and beautifully-told. With amazing performances and beautiful direction from Bill Condon, every aspect comes together flawlessly. If you haven't yet, then you must hurry out and see "Dreamgirls". It is one of the most triumphant movies of the year and will definitely have you smiling by the end. If I didn't make my point earlier, Jennifer Hudson is the cherry on top of this sundae. Her commanding performance completely enthralled the audience. "Dreamgirls" is the best musical in years.

Final Thought: "Dreamgirls" is a must-see movie with excellent performances and wonderful music.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)

Casino Royale (2006)

"I Have No Armor Left. You've Stripped It From Me. Whatever Is Left Of Me Whatever I Am I'm Yours." --- James Bond (Daniel Craig)

[10/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Casino Royale" (2006)

By: Martin Campbell

Starring: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench, Mads Mikkelsen, Caterina Murino, Jeffrey Wright, Ivana Milicevic, & Giancarlo Giannini

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for intense sequences of violent action, a scene of torture, sexual content and nudity)

My first experience with James Bond was with the 1995 classic, "GoldenEye". From that moment on, I was absolutely hooked with the suave secret agent and the array of interesting characters that surrounded him, from Moneypenny to M. Because this was my first Bond film, I have always felt that Pierce Brosnan was one of the best actors to have ever gotten the role (behind only Sean Connery and equal to Roger Moore). So, when it was announced that Brosnan would not be returning for a sixth film (after "Die Another Day" in 2002), I was quite disappointed...but yet interested to see who would be cast. After a long search for the new Bond (with Clive Owen as a fan favorite), it was announced that Daniel Craig would portray 007 in the twenty-first installment in the amazingly successful Bond franchise. Some fans were outraged, some were unsure, some were just glad the search was over, and I was one of the few that were rather indifferent to the decision. I knew that Craig was a great actor, but was he the right actor to play Bond? I wasn't sure, but I was willing to give him a chance. Well, having seen his first Bond film, "Casino Royale", I can say that Craig WAS right for the role. In fact, Craig brings something new to the role: a certain roughness that seems to make Bond more realistic and more fulfilling than any other.

After receiving his license to kill, James Bond 007 (Craig) is sent on a mission to Madagascar to track down a known terrorist. Things do not go as planned the mission is compromised. Bond goes to the Bahamas to investigate independently of MI6 and encounters Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian) and his beautiful girlfriend, Solange (Murino). He discovers that Dimitrios is linked to Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen), banker to the world's terrorists, who is planning a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro at Le Casino Royale. MI6 agrees to stake Bond in the game, with hopes that Bond will win and Le Chiffre's organization will be destroyed. Placed under the watchful eye of the beautiful Vesper Lynd (Green), Bond is at first skeptical of what the accountant has to offer, but, as they face violence and torture together, Bond discovers that Vesper is far more valuable than he originally thought. As the stakes in the game are raised above blood money, "Casino Royale" builds up to a an exciting, chilling climax.

If you will remember, "Die Another Day" suffered from one major problem: the overuse of gadgets. In just one movie, we had an invisible car, a ring that could shatter glass (how convenient), cell phone bombs, hovercrafts, the world's fastest vehicle, and so much more. Bond was overshadowed by the gadgets and it seemed as though he lacked any reason whatsoever to use his intelligence, because a nifty gadget could get him out of trouble almost instantly. In "Casino Royale", there are no gadgets and the film returns to the very basics of the Bond franchise. Bond must use his brain and his brawn to survive and, even then, it is not an easy ride. Bond bleeds…and bleeds a lot. He isn't some flawless, superhuman agent anymore and that is a wonderful thing. Daniel Craig's Bond is a throwback to the days of Sean Connery and is a refreshing blast of fresh air from "Die Another Day", which was, in my opinion, a little too clean-cut and pretty.

Daniel Craig managed to equal Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, in my book, and is only slightly behind Sean Connery. With a few more movies and more room to grow, Craig may very well surpass Connery. As this is a "reboot" of the entire franchise, Craig was allowed to interpret the character how he chose to do so without having to concern himself with how his predecessors took on the part. Overall, "Casino Royale" is an amazing movie--one of the top Bond films ever and every individual aspect seemed to come together beautifully. The performances, especially from Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, and Judi Dench, are flawless and deeply engaging. The pacing is nearly flawless with only a few moments that seem to remain stagnant. Martin Campbell's direction is clear and vivid without being overly-stylized. This movie is a must-see and one of the year's best action films. For fans of James Bond, this is a movie that you cannot miss in theaters.

Final Thought: "Casino Royale" will have Bond fans and audiences in general applauding. Daniel Craig is here to stay.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)

Borat (2006)

"Although Kazakhstan A Glorious Country, It Have A Problem, Too: Economic, Social, And Jew." --- Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen)

[8/10 · 14 April 2007]

"Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" (2006)

Directed By: Larry Charles

Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen & Ken Davitian

MPAA Rating: "R" (for pervasive strong crude and sexual content including graphic nudity, and language)

Sacha Baron Cohen is probably best known for his work on the hugely-popular "Da Ali G Show". One of the characters portrayed in the television series was Kazakhstani television reporter, Borat (played by Cohen). Borat was famous for being anti-Semitic and for being a nymphomaniac. There is not a person in this world of which this man has not made fun…but, just to be safe, Cohen decided to expand his character to the silver screen and, thus, we have "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan". I had heard a variety of things about this movie. This movie is one of those that you will either love or you will hate. It's a crude, rude, and deeply shameless movie that takes aim at everyone, from President Bush to Jews. "We support your war of terror," Borat cries to a crowd at a rodeo. Nothing is left unscathed when Borat comes to America and, surprisingly enough, I enjoyed every minute of it. I adore movies that are politically incorrect (i.e. "Thank You for Smoking" and "American Dreamz") and "Borat" is probably the most incorrect of them all.

Kazakhstani TV personality Borat (Cohen) is sent by his country's government to give a report on "the greatest country in the world"--yes, the United States of America. Heading to New York first, Borat and his documentary crew begin to interview various people and make friends…or, more appropriately, enemies…all over the city. But, when Borat happens upon a rerun of "Baywatch", he falls head over heels in love with Pamela Anderson. Soon, Borat begins a road trip across the United States to California so that he may find Pamela and marry her. You have probably heard about the multiple lawsuits against Sacha Baron Cohen and this movie. That is because many (some say all, but I seriously doubt that) of the scenes were shot without a script and with unknowing individuals who fall prey to Cohen's performance. This means that this movie, aside from the actual character of Borat, is as real as possible. I understand why the people in the movie would be angry about being fooled, but I can't help but to assume that this is why the movie worked so well. The genuine reactions of these random people to Borat are priceless and provide more laughs than the title character himself.

The performances…okay, performance is absolutely flawless. Having never seen "Da Ali G Show", I wasn't sure about Sacha Baron Cohen and, in all honesty, from the previews, he just looked very annoying. I was prepared to hate him, but, once the movie started, I just couldn't help but love him. He's hilarious and immediately engaging. The only other performance is that of Ken Davitian who plays Borat's partner in crime Azamat Bagatov. He provided a stark contrast to Cohen's over-the-top performance and his inclusion was probably one of the smartest things the filmmakers did. If not for Davitian's more subdued character, Cohen's Borat would probably have irritated me more than he already did. The rest of the cast predominately included unwitting victims to Cohen's game and, though I am sure that some of them are probably staged actors and actresses, I won't waste time trying to differentiate between the actual actors and just regular people. Though, if they were actors and actresses, they did a good job.

This movie is an open-and-shut case. It's a simple comedy, much like "Jackass Number Two". A grown man does stupid stuff and we laugh--this isn't rocket science and it certainly shouldn't be treated as such. On the negative side of things, the character of Borat really did get on my nerves from time to time. On top of that, some bits just didn't entertain me as much as they just disgusted me. For example, when Borat and Azamat are running through a hotel completely naked, it was just awkward and gross. But, when everything was said and done, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" is easily one of the funniest movies of the year. It is crude, offensive, and just plain weird, but very effective. Sure, you may feel guilty for laughing at the end, but the important thing is that you will laugh…for the entire time.

Final Thought: "Borat" will make you laugh and that is enough reason to watch.

Overall Rating: 8/10 (A-)

The Covenant (2006)

"A Spider Came And Sat Down Beside Her And Frightened Miss Muffet Away!" --- Chase Collins (Sebastian Stan)

[5/10 · 11 March 2007]

"The Covenant" (2006)

Directed By: Renny Harlin

Starring: Steven Strait, Laura Ramsey, Sebastian Stan, Taylor Kitsch, Chace Crawford, Toby Hemingway, & Jessica Lucas

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for intense sequences of violence and action, some disturbing images, sexual content, partial nudity and language)

In a world where private schools admit students based on their flawless looks and perfectly-formed abs and where only the hottest guys in school have magical powers, "The Covenant" exists. It is a simple movie with a simple plot. So, let's get started. Caleb Danvers (Strait) is a hot warlock who hangs out with other hot warlocks and who likes the hot new girl, Sarah Wenham (Ramsey). When an evil, but equally hot warlock named Chase Collins (Stan) comes to town, he wants to take Caleb's powers and the two begin an all-out war against each other. Special effects, sexy bodies, and spiders (?) ensue. "The Covenant" really is that simple and that shallow. There are a few themes and subplots that add a bit more depth to the otherwise light movie, but, honestly, that depth is very limited. "The Covenant" fails to be anything more than a ninety minutes entertaining action thriller with a gorgeous cast.

What would happen if you took a load of "Abercrombie & Fitch" models, put them at a private school, and gave the best-looking guys superpowers and then threw in one "Gap" model with stronger superpowers? I would imagine that it would look very similar to "The Covenant". Everyone in this movie is so amazingly good looking that you watch it and one of the biggest thoughts that comes to mind is, "What kind of school do they go to? I want to go!" You would think that there would be at least someone who isn't completely gorgeous, but, alas, there is not. Do not get me wrong, however; the cast does relatively well, giving solid performances. The biggest problem they face is some very weak dialog, but most of them handle it decently.

Steven Strait leads the shockingly good-looking cast admirably. He underplays it, keeping his performance realistic. I was surprised that he didn't overact, because it would have been very easy to do so here. Sebastian Stan does overact somewhat, but it works. He doesn't come off as annoying and, instead, appears to be very evil and slightly eccentric. It worked well enough, though I do think that had he underplayed it as well, it would have made his character all the more sinister. Laura Ramsey gives an honest, likable performance. Ramsey has only done a few movies, though she has proved to be a very solid actress. It doesn't hurt that she is unbelievably gorgeous. Kyle Schmid plays a jerk…I feel like I've seen that before. He did what he needed to do, because he got on my nerves and I wanted to reach into the screen and strangle him. Job done! Jessica Lucas, like Ramsey, is very sympathetic here. Also like Ramsey, she is very likable. Taylor Kitsch, Chace Crawford, and Toby Hemingway all do competent enough jobs, though, for the most part, they are all interchangeable.

"The Covenant" is a very flawed film, but it is an entertaining one. Despite being utterly predictable and clichéd, it was a fun little thriller that kept me interested the entire time. Its biggest problem is that it takes itself far too seriously. It is a movie about dueling warlocks! Have a little more fun with it! The movie's villain also becomes far too clichéd when he is revealed to be the villain. He starts babbling off one-liners and laughing maniacally. On top of that, it was absolutely no fun trying to predict who the villain was…because the trailer revealed it (not through hidden undertones, but through blatantly stating it). So, why did the movie try to pretend like we didn't know who the baddie was? But, it was fun to watch two hot warlocks battling it out with a hot girl in the middle. The movie, despite some horrible dialog and a predictably predictable plot, was more fun that it should have been. It kept me entertained and that was good enough for me.

Final Thought: "The Covenant", though predictable, was an entertaining watch.

Overall Rating: 5/10 (B-)

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

"Do As I Say And You'll Live!" --- Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson)

[8/10 · 11 March 2007]

"Snakes on a Plane" (2006)

Directed By: David R. Ellis

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Juliana Margulies, Nathan Phillips, Rachel Blanchard, Sunny Mabrey, Flex Alexander, Kenan Thompson, Lin Shaye, Bruce James, & Keith Dallas

MPAA Rating: "R" (for language, a scene of sexuality and drug use, and intense sequences of terror and violence)

"Snakes on a Plane" was an instant internet phenomenon from the very first moment it was announced. In a matter of days, thousands of internet-users flooded blogs, websites, and video-hosting sites to chat about the movie and to upload their homemade trailers. This obsession lasted for months and hardly anyone was spared. But then, the strangest thing imaginable happened. All of the buzz just…fizzled. It seemed as though "Snakes on a Plane" just went away. When it was time for the movie to finally open, critics (surprisingly) enjoyed it, but the movie received a rather disappointing greeting. When it left theaters, it had garnered $34 million domestically, barely eclipsing its $33 million budget (though, it fared much better in worldwide totals). But, the real question is: is "Snakes on a Plane" worth your hard-earned dollars? To my surprise and pleasure, I found "Snakes on a Plane" to be a perfect blend of horror, action, and comedy. Though not intelligent and more fluff than anything else, "Snakes on a Plane" is an entertaining movie experience that will bring more fun than most any other film this year.

Sean Jones (Phillips) is a typical surfer dude whose life is thrown off course when he witnesses a brutal murder by legendary mob boss, Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson). Agent Neville Flynn (Jackson) is sent to escort Sean to California so that he can testify in the court case and put Eddie behind bars. But, Eddie has other plans. His "henchmen" put a crate of the world's most poisonous snakes onboard the plane and sets a timer that will release the snakes at a certain altitude. Soon, all hell breaks loose as the poisonous reptiles begin to run rampant and the innocent flyers are all the target of their fangs. The plot for this movie is shockingly simple. It is one of the very few in which the title, which consists of four brief words, sums up the entire movie. You know, there are certain movies that you watch for intellectual purposes, such as "Munich" and "Good Night, and Good Luck" just to name a few recent ones. Then, there are the movies you watch because you want a good, light, fun time with friends. "Snakes on a Plane" is one of the latter and it is an extremely effective one at that.

"Snakes on a Plane" is not a movie that relies on its performances. After all, this movie isn't called "People on a Plane with Snakes". Who cares if they can act when they are all being attacked and killed by hundreds of snakes…on a plane? I know I don't, but, in all honesty, the performances are all competent enough. Samuel L. Jackson was…well, he was Samuel L. Jackson. He was a tough-talking, butt-kicking you-know-what who ripped through a bunch of snakes and spat out a few catchy one-liners. Sure, this was practically the same performance he put out in "Deep Blue Sea" (minus the glasses), but it worked here too. I kept expecting a shark to pop up and eat him, but, alas, a plane is not a good place to house a shark. Juliana Margulies also does a nice job, providing a sympathetic heroine and injecting more humanity into the role than the original script provided. I dug her a lot. Nathan Phillips, from the stellar "Wolf Creek", gives another good performance. He was fine here. Overall, the cast was suitable. They screamed, they killed snakes, and then most of them died--the end.

Let's get this straight. If you go into a movie entitled "Snakes on a Plane" expecting the next great Oscar winner, then you have no business going into the movie to begin with. This movie is nothing but pure fun, though it isn't perfect. I can forgive the silliness of the initial plot, because, let's face it, the movie was very straight-forward about the silliness from the beginning. But, there are a few things I just cannot forgive, the most noticeable being the ending. If you've seen the movie, you know what I am talking about. If you haven't, then you will. It was just too over-the-top and reeked of the good-old cliché of always having some random passenger who can fly a crashing plane. On top of that, was it just me or was Samuel L. Jackson underused when it came to the snake-killing territory? Sure, when he got the chance, he ripped them to pieces, but it is most of the other passengers who get the real glory. Also, was it just me or did some of the special effects look a little…unpolished? None of them were really noticeably bad, but, upon my second viewing, I noticed that some of the snakes looked very cheesy. Did you know that snakes could leap up a few feet in the air to strike a person in the face? Yeah, me neither. But, when "Snakes on a Plane" ended, I left feeling energetic and excited. This is a fun movie and really, when everything was said and done, that is all that mattered.

Final Thought: "Snakes on a Plane" is as much fun as the title suggests.

Overall Rating: 8/10 (A-)

The Last Kiss (2006)

"People Know The Truth. They Might Not Like It Or Want To Know It, But They Always Know. Lie And You'll Lose Her." --- Stephen (Tom Wilkinson)

[8/10 · 11 March 2007]

"The Last Kiss" (2006)

Directed By: Tony Goldwyn

Starring: Zach Braff, Jacinda Barrett, Casey Affleck, Rachel Bilson, Michael Weston, Eric Christian Olsen, Blythe Danner, Tom Wilkinson, & Marley Shelton

MPAA Rating: "R" (for sexuality, nudity and language)

I didn't expect anything from "The Last Kiss". I didn't necessarily expect it to enjoy it, but I didn't necessarily expect to not enjoy it either. I was quite indifferent to this movie actually. So, imagine my surprise when I discovered that "The Last Kiss" is one of the most touching, poignant, and romantic films of 2006, achieving a complex understanding of human relationships and anxieties. It has great performances that are vulnerable and realistic. They give the movie a very authentic feel and, fortunately, all of the actors underplay it. They could have easily gone over-the-top with the emotional scenes and yet they do not. They allow sheer emotion to shine through, rather than masking it with tears, sobbing, and screaming. The only scene that does not follow this effect is handled in a different, yet effective way. I will not give it a way, but you will most certainly know which scene I speak of when you watch the movie. And you should watch this movie. It is a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted character study that is emotionally resonant and genuine.

Michael (Braff) is a young man who is in love with Jenna (Barrett). The two are engaged and are expecting their first child…but Michael has many anxieties about settling down. He feels as though his old life will end when he is married…and what if he isn't ready to close the book on that part of his life? He happens upon a beautiful young college student named Kim (Bilson) and the two begin an innocent relationship. They are just friends…but Michael refuses to tell Jenna, wanting to keep the relationship a secret. At the same time, Jenna's parents are going through a spot of trouble. Her mother, Anna (Danner), is sick of feeling unloved and leaves Jenna's father, Stephen (Wilkinson). Michael's friends, all in various stages of relationships, also begin to have many problems with their loved ones. "The Last Kiss" tells of the drama that can exist between any couple in any stage of their relationship and that, ultimately, love is a leap of faith that must be made between two people together…or not at all.

Zach Braff leads the cast admirably, making us feel for him even though he does a few unlikable things. Braff gives a layered and complex performance. Jacinda Barrett gives a sympathetic show. We could invest most of our emotions with her, because she was a relatable character. Barrett's controlled performance worked well here. Casey Affleck also does a good job. Not too long ago, I expressed my surprise that Mischa Barton did "The OH in Ohio" as a follow-up to her role in "The O.C." rather than a role in some teen comedy or slasher flick. I applauded her for doing so…and I do the same for Rachel Bilson. Bilson obviously wanted to prove her talent here, rather than just to stay in the limelight. She took a character that could have been an unlikable one and made it into something more. It worked very well.

When "The Last Kiss" ended, I realized that I had watched an interesting study on characters and relationships that was very touching and realistic in its portrayal of love and humanity. It tells several beautiful stories, all connected, with great performances and excellent writing. It is a surprisingly effective and in-your-face drama that will make you take a deeper look inside of yourself as a result of your watching it. Some critics deemed the movie to be boring and fake, but I must say that they really missed the point. "The Last Kiss" does take a few liberties by having all of the various relationship problems presented in one group of people, but each problem is something that some couples face. This leads me to the movie's major flaw: some of the characters probably could have been deleted altogether. They and their rather unimportant problems, at times, overshadowed the two main story lines and I just didn't really see a point. But, really, what "The Last Kiss" has to offer is too important to turn down.

Final Thought: "The Last Kiss" is a touching, romantic, but truthful portrayal of relationships.

Overall Rating: 8/10 (A-)

The Black Dahlia (2006)

"Nothing Stays Buried Forever Nothing." --- Officer Dwight 'Bucky' Bleichert

[6/10 · 11 March 2007]

"The Black Dahlia" (2006)

Directed By: Brian De Palma

Starring: Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, Aaron Eckhart, Hilary Swank, Mia Kirshner, Mike Starr, & Fiona Shaw

MPAA Rating: "R" (for strong violence, some grisly images, sexual content and language)

Much like with "All the King's Men", I first saw the trailer for "The Black Dahlia" when I went to see "Hollywoodland" and my first reaction was, "That is going to be an amazing movie!" Well, to my surprise, critics were not very kind to the movie and what seemed like a sure Oscar contender, suddenly, became just another typical movie. From the negative reactions of critics, it didn't look like this would win any Oscars any time soon…unless it was a technical Oscar because, honestly, everyone pretty much agreed that "The Black Dahlia", if nothing else, looked beautiful. Well, I still had to see it, because, like with "All the King's Men", I was hoping that critics were wrong. If you have read my review of "All the King's Men", then you know that I pretty much agreed with critics (awarding it a measly 2/10), so the question with "The Black Dahlia" is: Were the critics right?

Officer Dwight 'Bucky' Bleichert (Hartnett) and his partner, Sergeant Leland 'Lee' Blanchard are investigating the brutal murder of fledgling film actress, Elizabeth Short (Kirchner) whose butchered body was found in a field. She had had her mouth sliced open and had been cut in half. When Lee develops a surprising obsession with the mystery and the murder victim, Bucky begins to realize that there are darker, more sinister truths at work and that everyone is somehow involved with the mystery. In Hollywood, nothing stays buried forever…nothing. "The Black Dahlia" was inspired by the real life murder of Elizabeth Short and is an adaptation of the James Ellroy novel. If you are familiar at all with the case, you will know that much of the material presented in this movie and in the novel is fictitious. In fact, the only truly honest aspect of the movie is that Short was murdered (the way in which she was is also accurate). Everything else, for the most part, is fabricated.

Critics were, unfortunately, partially correct when they judged "The Black Dahlia". It is one of the most convoluted films I have ever seen. Characters are thrown at us and are never fully explained. The various character relationships are typically so stretched and awkward that they don't fully support the choppy story. However, "The Black Dahlia" does still have enough positive aspects to make me recommend it. It is one of the most visually beautiful films of the year and successfully captures the mood of the era in which it was set. The performances are all well-done and are quite efficient. On top of that, I still enjoyed trying to figure out the movie, though I didn't buy the difficult story at all. I still have yet to decipher it all, but, with a few more viewings, I should have it all clear. Overall, "The Black Dahlia" is not necessarily a very intelligent movie (though it pretends to be), but it is still a well-made film that is quite enjoyable, despite an overly-complicated plot and thin character relationships.

Josh Hartnett is an average actor. He has never had a really dynamic role and this is no exception. His character is not a very interesting one and, in all actuality, he often finds himself overshadowed by the supporting cast. Scarlett Johansson is a very good actress and she does a nice job here, giving a sympathetic and vulnerable performance. Aaron Eckhart is one of the best actors working today and has really just burst into the minds of audiences with a phenomenal performance in the bitter comedy, "Thank You for Smoking". He does a great job here, understanding the obsession of his character without overplaying it or overacting. It worked very well. Hilary Swank, the two-time Oscar winner, doesn't give her best performance and I thought her accent here was awkward, but she does a competent enough job. I bought it! When "The Black Dahlia" ended, I was completely and utterly confused. But, I wanted to see it again. I wanted to figure it out. It is that interest and that intrigue that makes me recommend it.

Final Thought: With amazing visuals and impressive direction from De Palma, "The Black Dahlia" manages to be a confusing, but intriguing watch.

Overall Rating: 6/10 (B)

The Descent (2005)

"Hey, There's Something Down Here..." --- Holly (Nora-Jane No one)

[10/10 · 10 March 2007]

"The Descent" (2005)

Directed By: Neil Marshall

Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring, Nora-Jane No one, & Oliver Milburn

MPAA Rating: "Unrated" (for strong violence/gore and language)

***PLEASE NOTE: This Is A Review Of The "Unrated" Version Of The Movie***

When The Arrow (horror critic from the "Arrow in the Head" website and really the only critic I listen to when concerning the horror genre) gave "The Descent" a four-star rating and named it his favorite horror movie of 2005, I immediately put it on my "Must-See" list. I finally got the chance in August to see it in theaters and I realized that Neil Marshall is a horror genius. With "The Descent", Marshall crafted one of the greatest entries to the horror genre in the past decade, combining claustrophobia and bloodthirsty creatures flawlessly. It has been a long time since I found a horror movie that is one of the year's best movies…but I found that with "The Descent". This film is shocking, terrifying, and surprisingly effective. For the first time in a very long time, a horror movie actually had me trembling when I left the theater. And, when I picked up the Unrated DVD and watched it (knowing the alternate ending ahead of time), I found myself even more affected by its unflinching and deeply dark attitude. "The Descent" is a serious horror movie--incomparable to most others made today.

Sarah (Macdonald) is a troubled woman. One year ago, her husband and her daughter were killed in a car accident, which she barely escaped. She has never been able to recover from the devastating blow. Her friends, including Juno (Mendoza) and Rebecca (Mulder), decide that taking a vacation will do her good and, knowing that Sarah enjoys exciting things, they choose a cave-diving adventure. At first, everything is going perfectly…but then the entrance caves in and the women find themselves trapped beneath the earth's surface with no way of knowing whether they can find the exit…if it even exists. Things go from bad to completely hellish when they discover that they are not alone in the cave, for a group of vicious, bloodthirsty creatures are thriving down in the darkness and they have been waiting for a fresh meal. Scream your last breath.

People expecting a shallow, bloody, and rapidly-faced war between man (or, more appropriately, woman) and creature will be disappointed with "The Descent". It is not the typical horror movie and I thank God for that. The first half is a calmly-paced caving expedition that exploits everyday fears we may have, such as claustrophobia and fear of darkness. It gives us to time to develop bonds with the characters, particularly Sarah and Juno. Then, the nightmare truly begins and the characters we have come to feel for are plunged into one of the most horrifying scenarios imaginable. They are trapped in the darkness with the chance of escape growing smaller and smaller with every passing minute…and, on top of that, hordes of violent, snarling creatures arrive and tear into the group of friends. Then comes the war. You see, these women are not the clichéd female characters from horror movies that scream, hide, and cry hysterically the entire time…and then die. These women, though scared and emotional, want to survive and do not merely run around like chickens with their heads chopped off. They fight to the death and unleash their most animalistic instincts in order to survive. This is handled in a realistic and believable fashion.

When "The Descent" premiered in Britain, it featured a different ending than the version released in the original…an ending that changed everything, but that was only a few moments longer. I am proud to say that the "Unrated" edition features the original ending…the way the movie was meant to be seen. It was a more fitting ending and, for me anyways, a much more thought-provoking. Strong performances by the almost entirely-female cast give this movie an excellent finishing touch and Neil Marshall's direction ups the tension and terror without using clichéd and overused styles. I was happy to see that the creatures were exposed in only brief glimpses or usually bathed in darkness, instead of being shown outright from the opening scene. This concept was probably most successfully used in "Jaws", but, here, it is used almost just as effectively. On the slightly negative side, there were a few characters that weren't given enough time to develop so I got them confused when things went crazy. But, "The Descent" is easily the best horror film of 2006 and of the past few years. It is tense, suspenseful, and ultimately horrifying.

Final Thought: Are you tired of seeing the same, generic horror movie over and over? "The Descent" is the cure for that.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)

Step Up (2006)

"Do I Look Like I Own Tights?" --- Tyler Gage (Channing Tatum)

[7/10 · 10 March 2007]

"Step Up" (2006)

Directed By: Anne Fletcher

Starring: Channing Tatum, Jenna Dewan, Mario, Damaine Radcliff, Drew Sidora, Rachel Griffiths, De'Shawn Washington, & Josh Henderson

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for thematic elements, brief violence and innuendo)

Dance movies have been running rampant in Hollywood lately…and most of them have been horrible. Critics almost always pan them and, despite the usual strong audience turnout, many audience members leave feeling disappointed. One of the very few dance movies that revolutionized the genre was "Take the Lead" and, despite still not winning many critics' hearts, it connected with audiences. It grasped a much deeper of the understanding genre than its shallow cousins and sported top-notch performances with impeccable dance sequences. "Step Up" is more of a romantic drama than a dance movie, though I suppose dance is a huge part of the movie thus sealing it into its genre. It falls for most of the clichés and stereotypes to which other teen romances succumb, but its lively and energetic dance moves coupled with electric chemistry between the two leads and solid supporting performances make "Step Up" a step above the norm.

You've heard this plot before…or, at least, something very similar. "Step Up" tells the story of two teens, both from two very different worlds, who meet and fall in love. The first is Tyler Gage (Tatum). He is the "bad boy with a heart" who is, ultimately, just misunderstood. The other is Nora Clark (Dewan), a wealthy dance student preparing for her senior showcase. When Tyler and two of his friends wreck the stage at a prestigious art school and Tyler is caught, he is forced to do community service. His service: he must work as a janitor at the school. He happens upon Nora whose partner has just been injured. She needs someone to take his place if she wants to get a position at a dance company after graduation. The two meet, sparks fly, the status quo is thrown off balance, and the two prepare for the ultimate dance routine. Does this sound familiar? Delete the dancing and you have countless other romantic dramas. But, that is the key to improving a clichéd plot: adding something new (i.e. the dance aspect).

"Step Up" actually has good performances. Channing Tatum is a good actor but, I'll be perfectly honest, his performance here is mixed…however the guy has shown his talent with other projects (namely "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints", in which he gave a caustic, gritty performance). This just isn't his best work, but don't give me wrong. His performance serves its purpose. Jenna Dewan, on the other hand, aces her role. She worked very well. Not surprisingly, the two leads work best when they are together. They have amazing chemistry and their dance sequences are spectacular. For his first role in a major motion picture, Mario does fine. There isn't much substance with his character, but he handles it relatively well. Drew Sidora starred in "White Chicks"…but I can forgive and forget. Can you? If so, then you will probably see that she does manage to give a nice performance here. My only question is: can she really sing that well? She sounded awesome.

When "Step Up" ended, I realized that, despite all of the clichés, I had had a blast. The movie is, if nothing else, an entertaining film. It is anything but flawless, however. It is cliché-ridden and there really isn't enough dancing. With such amazing choreography, more dance sequences would have been greatly appreciated. I was also a little disappointed with how Nora's first boyfriend, Brett (Henderson), was handled. Instead of making him seem like a realistic character that would have provided more conflict for Nora, they merely took the easy route and made him into a complete jerk…the same was true with Lucy's (Sidora) first boyfriend. But, like I said, I had fun…as did the audience with which I watched it. Everyone seemed to enjoy it and, ultimately, that is the reason why movies exist. If movies fail to entertain, then really what is the point? "Step Up" may not be the most original film to date, but it is too much fun to ignore.

Final Thought: "Step Up" is pure entertainment, nothing more or less.

Overall Rating: 7/10 (B+)

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

"Grandpa, Am I Pretty?" --- Olive (Abigail Breslin)

[10/10 · 10 March 2007]

"Little Miss Sunshine" (2006)

Directed By: Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris

Starring: Abigail Breslin, Greg Kinnear, Paul Dano, Alan Arkin, Toni Collette, & Steve Carell

MPAA Rating: "R" (for language, some sex and drug content)

If you have never read a little story called "The Little Engine That Could", then I don't think you can truly appreciate "Little Miss Sunshine". For those of you have not read the book, I will give you a brief overview. It tells the story of a little steam engine that can't pull a particularly large load up a hill…but, through positive thinking and self-confidence, the little engine that could succeeds. For most children, this story is their first encounter with the notion of "positive thinking and devotion can lead to success". "Little Miss Sunshine" is that timeless children's story adapted for adult and is just as timeless and effective. It is a movie that truly understands people, families, and how they all relate to each other. Sporting some of the best performances of the year (particularly from the young little Abigail Breslin), "Little Miss Sunshine" is the year's best comedy and one of the best comedies of the past few years.

Olive (Breslin) is a young girl who only wants to be pretty and to win a beauty contest. When she gets the chance to compete in the "Little Miss Sunshine" pageant, her diverse family all pile into a VW van to take a cross-country trip to get her to the pageant in time. Her family contains some of the most awkward yet lovable characters ever formulated, including her caring mother, Sheryl (Collette), her controlling motivational speaker of a father, Richard (Kinnear), her brother, Dwayne (Dano), who has taken a vow of silence, her drug-abusing foul-mouthed grandfather (Arkin), and her homosexual, suicidal uncle, Frank (Carell). With a plot like this, "Little Miss Sunshine" could have easily been just another Chevy Chase "Vacation" rip-off and yet it certainly is not. It is a touching, poignant film that is soaked in originality, creativity, and colorfulness. Its plot, though simplistic in nature, becomes a complex, multi-layered story as each different character is introduced.

"Little Miss Sunshine" features some of the best performances of the year. It has a truly amazing cast that all display some of the most electric and realistic chemistry ever put on the screen. Abigail Breslin, despite being so young, proves that a skill for acting is most definitely in her blood. She owns the movie, completely winning over the audience with her character's realistic childlike wander and understanding. Greg Kinnear managed to capture a very complex character. His character has so many detestable qualities and yet he is truly a good person. Kinnear nails it. Toni Collette took a simple part and made it real. Her character is really the only family member without a significant plot point and yet she never feels overshadowed. She holds her own and gives her likable character more substance than the script originally did. Paul Dano speaks only a few times in the movie and yet manages to be a sympathetic, relatable character that we grow to love just as much as any of the other family members. Dano achieves this through facial expressions and slight mannerisms. Steve Carell plays a gay man and yet he does not flaunt it. He underplays it, not giving a clichéd, stereotypical performance. I definitely respected the realism he injected into the part.

When comparing "Little Miss Sunshine" to "The Little Engine That Could", one cannot simply discuss the message they both share. "Little Miss Sunshine", itself, is surprisingly comparable to that little engine. Here was an independent comedy that, like many films of the same ilk, could have been praised by critics and ignored by audiences. However, it became a surprise hit, winning over critics, audiences, and Oscar voters, as well. It became one of the most successful independent films ever, grossing nearly $60 million on an $8 million budget. Much of this can be attributed to the amazing press it received from its premiere and, fortunately (as so many bad movies are becoming shockingly successful lately), "Little Miss Sunshine" deserved all of its praise and financial success. If you have not yet seen "Little Miss Sunshine", then you owe it to yourself to do so immediately. It is one of the most effective comedies made in the last twenty years, giving amazing performances and a solid, truthful heart that is as touching as it is realistic.

Final Thought: Heartfelt and real, "Little Miss Sunshine" is a wonderful comedy.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)

Invincible (2006)

"Even If You're Down There For An Hour, You're Down There." --- Tommy (Kirk Acevedo)

[5/10 · 10 March 2007]

"Invincible" (2006)

Directed By: Ericson Core

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Elizabeth Banks, Greg Kinnear, Kevin Conway, & Michael Rispoli

MPAA Rating: "PG" (for sports action and some mild language)

Wait just one minute! Haven't I seen this movie before? Inspirational movie? Check! Based on a particular sport? Check! Based on a true story? Check! Has a happy ending? Check? Predictable? Double-check! Made by Disney? Triple-Check! Okay, okay, I haven't seen this movie before…but I've seen COUNTLESS movies just like it, three of the most noticeable ones ("Remember the Titans", "Glory Road", and "The Rookie") being made by the very same company as this--yes, Disney. Everything, even the 70's soundtrack, has been used before…by Disney films no less. You can figure out every minute of this movie, from the hopeful beginning to the happy ending, and everything (and I stress the word "everything") will happen exactly as you believe it will. "Invincible" has no surprises, no originality, and really no point. Sure, the movie works on a very basic level (especially for people who have never seen another movie in their lives), but that can only be expected. After all, it copied at least three movies that worked far better.

Vince Papale (Wahlberg) loves football, but really only has experience playing around with his friends. When the Philadelphia Eagles hold an open try-out, Vince's friends convince him to give it a shot. Of course, Vince does and is whisked off to football camp where he is to train for one of the spots on the team. But, with everyone doubting him and expecting him to be cut at any time, can Vince gain the courage and the determination to keep going? Strangely enough, this movie completely ignores the fact that Vince played football for the Philadelphia Bell of the World Football League as a wide receiver until 1975. This is what earned him a meeting with Coach Dick Vermeil (played by Kinnear). The movie desires so desperately to pull off the whole "unknown bartender becomes professional football player" that it completely trivializes Papale's actual life. Why was the fact that Papale has since gone on to help students in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania? "Invincible" makes Papale's story out to be one of luck and being in the right place at the right time, rather than a story of perseverance, determination, and passion. But, this isn't the first time that Disney has completely skewed a true life story so I hardly expected any accuracy on their part.

The performances vary, both as a whole and individually. In other words, some of the actors were good, some were bad, some were good in some parts, and some were bad in some parts. Mark Wahlberg gave a consistent performance, as did Elizabeth Banks. They both did a good job. Wahlberg's engaging made me feel for his character…unfortunately the script gave him no help with that. Greg Kinnear was on and off. Sometimes, he seemed to be on the ball with his performance and I was definitely enjoying watching him work. Other times…well, it just didn't click. I enjoyed Michael Rispoli's performance, which surprised me because I'm not usually a fan. I guess this shows that you shouldn't judge someone for their work in a movie called "Death to Smoochy". Shame on me! The rest of the performances were passable--not bad, not good, just adequate for the roles. That is all that mattered, I guess.

At a generous 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, I see that most critics did enjoy "Invincible" and this surprises me. I suppose that maybe I am being a little too critical. Sure, "Invincible" followed a strict formula, even with its marketing campaign (the "Inspired by True Events" clearly marked across any and everything associated with the film), but the formula does work…somewhat. Even though I didn't care much for any of the characters by the end (feeling that the script did nothing to actually bring them to life and relied far too much on the actors to do so), I still found myself cheering at the exciting and well-written conclusion. It was a hopeful ending, but not a sappy one and worked well. Did I know that it was coming? Most certainly, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. On top of that, Mark Wahlberg and Elizabeth Banks gave their bests and did everything they possibly could to save their rather flat characters. I am very conflicted on what score to award "Invincible". I didn't enjoy it, but I am sure that many people will, especially if they skipped "Remember the Titans", "Glory Road", and "The Rookie". Though historically inaccurate (at all), horribly clichéd, and very predictable, there is still a small amount of fun to be had…and I suppose that it is just enough to warrant a watch.

Final Thought: Watching it at least once is not a bad thing, but don't expect anything new and don't think you know the true story.

Overall Rating: 5/10 (B-)

All the King's Men (2006)

"If They Don't Deliver, Give Me The Hammer And I'll Do It!" --- Willie Stark (Sean Penn)

[2/10 · 10 March 2007]

"All the King's Men" (2006)

Directed By: Steven Zaillian

Starring: Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandolfini, & Jackie Earle Haley

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for an intense sequence of violence, sexual content and partial nudity)

When I went to see "Hollywoodland" in theaters, the trailer for "All the King's Men" was attached. When it ended, I looked at my mother and said, "That is going to be an amazing movie!" Everything about the trailer screamed success, especially the all-star cast, which was filled with Academy Award nominees. I saw no way for this movie to fail…and then the first string of screenings occurred and I experienced the most shocking disappointment of the year. Critics deemed the movie boring, pretentious, and bland, bland, bland. How could it be? How could the movie that I thought would surely gain a slot in the "Best Pictures" nominations be nothing short of horrible? My reasoning was, very simply, that it could not be…that this was just another example of how critics sometimes get things wrong. So, I sat down to watch the movie, expecting to disagree with all of the negative reviews. Thirty minutes into the film, I came to a horrible, horrible realization. This time, the critics were right.

In this remake of the 1949 classic of the same title and this adaptation of the Robert Penn Warren novel, Sean Penn takes on the role of Willie Stark, a popular southern politician. At first an innocent man of the people, Stark slowly transforms into a corrupt politician--the same type of political figure he once condemned. But, as Stark is sure to discover, time brings all things to light and it is only a matter of time until Stark's career and life begin to unravel around him. With a plot like this, "All the King's Men" should have been a trailblazing drama that drew the audience into the corruption of Stark. It should have made an impact, not just on cinema, but on audiences and on politics as well. Instead of intrigue and drama, "All the King's Men" is packed with tedious scenes, dull dialog, and a shockingly pretentious execution.

With a cast like this, the performances should have been the highlight and, I suppose, they are. However, one performance doesn't work and, I must admit, that this surprised me. Sean Penn is an Oscar-winning actor who has delivered some of the best performances of our time, but his take on Willie Stark in "All the King's Men" is not one of them. Penn obviously thought that putting on a southern accent and shouting would win him another Oscar. Unsurprisingly, it comes off as one of the most predictable, dull performances of the year. He makes the character annoying, not charismatic, and fails to understand what his character should have been. The movie, given that its script is so miserable, was mostly dependant on him and he fails to help it at all. The rest of the cast does fine and everyone else, though not giving any Oscar-worthy performances, works well enough.

"Rest Stop" was a bad movie. "Mortuary" was even worse. However, I expected them to be horrible. They were low-budget, independent horror movies with lackluster plots and unknown casts. Never did I expect "All the King's Men" to be lumped up with them in 2006's worst movies list, but it is. It is a bleak, boring movie that fails miserably in any attempt to keep the audience interested. It is not completely horrible, though. It does sport decent performances from its supporting cast and Steven Zaillian's direction is well-done and gives the movie a nice atmosphere. The initial plot is amazing, though is almost completely wasted on an ineffectual script. There is no emotion here and no heart. The filmmakers clearly thought that a plot and a cast would win them an Oscar…but not even the most amazing cast can save a script that is heavier and less exciting or interesting than a slab of concrete.

Final Thought: When I think of this remake, one word comes to mind: BORING!

Overall Rating: 2/10 (C-)

Jackass Number Two (2006)

"Hi, I'm Johnny Knoxville! Welcome To 'Jackass'!" --- Johnny Knoxville

[7/10 · 10 March 2007]

"Jackass Number Two" (2006)

Directed By: Jeff Tremaine

Starring: Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera, Steve-O, Chris Pontius, Preston Lacy, Ryan Dunn, Ehren McGhehey, & Jason 'Wee Man" Acuña

MPAA Rating: "Unrated" (for extremely crude and dangerous stunts throughout, sexual content, nudity and language)

***PLEASE NOTE: This Is A Review Of The "Unrated" Version Of The Movie***

What is the point really and why do people watch these movies? I will never know why watching someone getting trampled by a raging bull or watching someone getting sucked by leeches is so entertaining and why so many people, me included, just enjoy watching it all happen. My theory is that, if someone is stupid enough to do something like the events portrayed in this movie and is getting paid to do said events, then I might as well watch it all happen. Don't get me wrong. This movie is not what I would consider a quality movie and certainly isn't worthy of any awards, but, for what it is, you will probably find yourself laughing the entire time. And, if you are anything like me, you will probably find yourself feeling guilty for taking such pleasure out of this movie. If you don't laugh at least one time while watching "Jackass Number Two", then, congratulations, you are a boring stick-in-the-mud.

You know the plot…or lack thereof. A bunch of people who have no considerable talent or intelligence all get together and pull off a series of painful, mind-numbingly brainless stunts that always end in injury. This is a sequel to a movie based on an immensely-popular MTV series that featured a bunch of people who have no considerable talent or intelligent all getting together and pulling off a series of painful, mind-numbingly brainless stunts that always end in injury. Wait…what's the difference between the television show and the movie? Well, this movie features all of the stunts that cannot be shown on TV…and I mean that very literally. Many of the stunts shown in this movie could never be shown on any television channel…ever. I mean, would MTV ever show a man drinking horse semen? Um, the answer is obviously "no" and for good reason. First and foremost, MTV would probably find itself out of business and, on top of that, parent groups would probably have a field day and soon every channel in the industry would be getting scraped with a fine-tooth comb. Remember post-Janet-Jackson-breast-exposing-during-Super-Bowl-Half-Time-Show? Think three times the size of that and you would have what would occur if "Jackass Number Two" was shown on television without a considerable amount of editing.

In comparison to the original, "Jackass Number Two" is not quite as entertaining. There are a few moments when things get quite dull and the laughs almost completely stop. Instead of stunts and pranks, they do scripted little skits. "The Miniature Bathroom Incident" comes to mind. What was that? On top of that, the male nudity explodes in this movie and the homoerotic tendencies are at an all-time high. I don't remember the language used in the first movie, but this movie features 117 F-words (thanks to kidsinmind.com for that little tidbit of useless information). That's overkill if you ask me and only shows that the cast members have nothing useful to say…just in case you forgot the fact that are a bunch of people who have no considerable talent or intelligence (that phrase is getting used a little too much lately). While I typically do not complain about language in movies, "Jackass Number Two" abused my good graces a little too much and for no reason whatsoever. It just didn't make sense to me.

When "Jackass Number Two" ended, I realized that this was a sure-fire success--an effective movie if there ever was one. Sure, the effect is to make you laugh so hard that you throw up…or possibly to throw up first and then laugh at that too, but it hits the nail on the head regardless. This movie is funny and, even though you will feel terribly guilty after it all, you will still realize that this is hilariously over-the-top and perfectly effective. Despite a few slow points and excessive bad language, "Jackass Number Two" is a movie that will have everyone rolling on the floor, clutching their stomachs, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, financial background, etc. Just don't be surprised if you find yourself keeping the fact that you watched in from your coworkers.

Final Thought: Funny! Funny! Funny! Shamefully funny! That is all that needs to be said.

Overall Rating: 7/10 (B+)

The Wicker Man (2006)

"Step Away From The Bike!" --- Edward Malus (Nicolas Cage)

[2/10 · 10 March 2007]

"The Wicker Man" (2006)

Directed By: Neil LaBute

Starring: Nicolas Cage, Ellen Burstyn, Kate Beahan, Frances Conroy, Molly Parker, Leelee Sobieski, & Diane Delano

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for disturbing images and violence, language and thematic issues)

I am going to be open and completely honest with you. I have never seen "The Wicker Man" (1973) and, in all honesty, had never even heard about it until this remake was announced. Before I saw the remake, I did a little research on the original…and, immediately, I knew that the filmmakers behind this project had made a grave mistake. "The Wicker Man" (1973) has a very strong fan base and it features Christopher Lee as the main villain--yes, the Christopher Lee. Who could they possibly find to replace him? However, I was intrigued by the casting. Nicolas Cage signed on as our main character and, I'll be honest, I'm a fan of his. And Ellen Burstyn agreed to take over the role made infamous by Lee (the role was changed from male to female). I don't know about you, but Burstyn can do no wrong in my book. She's a fantastic actress. Still, I didn't expect anything new from this remake, especially after critics practically buried it alive and my fellow IMDb users wasted very little time in sinking its rating to the bottom of the barrel. Then, a video surfaced on the internet, featuring a few select scenes extracted from the film. I watched it and the small slice of hope I had for this was obliterated. The scenes looked horrible. They were so serious…yet so comical. Nothing in them worked. But, did "The Wicker Man" (2006) work better as a whole…or was it just as bad as these scenes suggested.

Edward Malus (Cage) is a Californian police officer, who is summoned by his ex-fiancé, Willow (Beahan), to Summersisle, a remote and private island off of the coast of Washington. Willow tells him that her daughter recently vanished and that she still must be on the island, as she was too young to leave by herself. Willow suspects that someone on the island may be doing horrible things to her child and desperately needs Edward to come and launch an investigation. Edward complies and travels to the island…only to find that it is home to a secretive, neo-pagan cult led by the dominating Sister Summersisle (Burstyn). No one on the island wants to cooperate, all claiming that the little girl either never existed or was burned alive accidentally. Edward continues to dig deeper into the cult's haunting past and learns off all of their rituals--including sacrifice to appease their goddess. But, nothing can prepare him for the shocking truth that will lead to the exposure of the Wicker Man…and its chilling purpose for being built. This plot is very similar to the original, even down to the names of its characters (there are a few changes). So, really, what is the point? This was my biggest complaint for "The Omen" (2006), but this movie seems to be desperate to embarrass the name of the original whereas "The Omen" (2006) actually worked as a nice companion to its predecessor.

The performances in "The Wicker Man" (2006) are surprisingly terrible. I never thought that this would be a complaint I had with this remake, but it most certainly is. The entire cast seems so bored and so lifeless that you cannot feel for any of the characters. Nicolas Cage gives, in my brutally honest opinion, the worst performance of the year. He is bland and painfully laughable. He did not even try to make his role any better than it was. It was embarrassing to watch him hang his head and give up on this film. Ellen Burstyn has done wrong…I know, the actress who "can do no wrong in my book" actually can do wrong and she did here. Her performance was over-the-top and comical, not working in any particular way. She doesn't come off as a particularly evil villain, but she doesn't appear to be a religious-fanatic bent on purifying her followers either. She just looks and acts like a nut the entire movie. Kate Beahan looked sleepy the entire movie and collected her paycheck. I don't have any complaints about Frances Conroy. She delivered her dialog with ample conviction, though she was instantly forgettable. I can't necessarily blame the cast for not being good, because they were given nothing to do and no substance to work with. They, like the rest of the filmmakers behind this movie, were obviously here for the paycheck.

When "Scary Movie 5" is made (and you know that it will eventually happen), I don't expect to see "The Wicker Man" (2006) on its list of movies to be spoofed. No, not because it flopped (grossing approximately $23.6 million domestically on a $40 million budget), but because this movie is a comedy in itself. "The Wicker Man" (2006) is an unintentionally comical film. It could have been the best comedy of the year, had it actually meant to make us laugh. But no, the movie wanted to be a bleak, dark, and depressing thriller that disturbed its audience and left them feeling weak and down on life. I should never have laughed and yet I found my sides hurting from all of the laughter I was experiencing. This is ultimately an embarrassing, disastrous remake that should be forgotten altogether except when people are making their "Bottom 10" lists. Avoid this at all costs. I leave you with the most memorable quote in this movie screamed by Edward as he is tortured with bees: "Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! All over my eyes!"!

Final Thought: I laughed more than I screamed…and that is a bad thing.

Overall Rating: 2/10 (C-)

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

"What Does A Scanner See? Into The Head? Into The Heart? Does It See Into Me? Clearly? Or Darkly?" --- Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves)

[3/10 · 10 March 2007]

"A Scanner Darkly" (2006)

Directed By: Richard Linklater

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder, & Rory Cochrane

MPAA Rating: "R" (for drug and sexual content, language and a brief violent image)

I was immediately intrigued by "A Scanner Darkly" for one reason…and one reason only. Its stylish visuals and next generation animation techniques made the movie look very, very cool. After seeing it, I can honestly say that what originally interested me about the movie…well, that is all there really is at all. The movie is surprisingly self-indulgent and shockingly, horrendously, mind-numbingly boring. I, literally, found myself staring at the screen, not caring what was happening with the characters. Why? Because, frankly, "A Scanner Darkly" is not a good movie and features unlikable and painfully annoying characters that fail to bring any sympathy from the audience. Though things do pick up in the second half, I was far too disjointed from the movie to care. In all actuality, the movie's only positive point (despite a relatively solid cast) is its ambitious style and interesting animation style. But, excellent visuals do not make a movie good. Beauty, after all, is only skin deep.

Bob Arctor (Reeves) is an undercover narcotics agent leading a very complex double life. He reports to his superiors, yet lives his life as a "Substance D" user and dealer. His life, filled with a colorful cast of characters, becomes shockingly confusing and very whacky. This plot is very similar to a 100-minute acid trip. I suppose that maybe, to get the full effect of the movie, you need to be drugged out of your mind…because, honestly, all of the characters are. I don't do drugs and I'm not about to try them just to enjoy a movie. "A Scanner Darkly" and its dull plot are just not entertaining at all. Couple that with some of the most annoying characters of the year and you have a truly bad movie. "A Scanner Darkly" is, unfortunately, a strike-out.

The performances in this movie are hard for me to analyze, because the characters are written to be so dull and bothersome. I would say that Keanu Reeves gave a subdued performance, making his character far less annoying than the others (in fact, his was the only character I gave two cents about)…but Reeves always underplays it. He hardly ever really pops out of the screen. Robert Downey Jr. is funny for a time and then he just becomes irritating. It worked partially, I suppose. Woody Harrelson overacted his way all over the place, doing everything but back flips to garner audience attention. The same goes for Rory Cochrane, except twice as bad. Twenty minutes in, I was praying that he would step out into heavy traffic and end the misery that his over-the-top performance was causing me. Winona Ryder, like Reeves, underplayed it. She was definitely right for the part and I respected her performance. As this movie is slightly animated, I must note that I cannot be sure how much of the actors' performances were them and how much were the animation. I felt that I should make that clear, before continuing.

Frankly put, I did not like this movie. "A Scanner Darkly" is not my cup of tea. It may be for some people and it clearly is, because I am in the minority by not liking it. However, it is not without its positives. The animation style is intriguing and ultimately beautiful. It gives the movie an original feeling. Richard Linklater's direction also works very well. That isn't very surprising. He's a wonderful director. "A Scanner Darkly" is based on Philip K. Dick's personal drug experiences (?) and the most touching, intimate, and realistic part of the entire movie is the dedication to all of his comrades who were killed or were permanently disabled by their addictions. When reading the list of names and the final message, I almost desired to watch "A Scanner Darkly" again in hopes of finding some heart buried beneath the pretentious exterior…but, alas, there was none. The only part of the movie that expressed any genuine thought or care was the dedication…and, unfortunately, that wasn't enough.

Final Thought: Though visually-stunning, "A Scanner Darkly" is ultimately a disappointing, boring film.

Overall Rating: 3/10 (C)