Tim Burton...

Most directors need to make a few films before they get a grasp on their abilities, not all the time, but most. Now, Burton did need to make a few films and other projects before his first hit in Pee-wee's Big Adventure, but from there, it gets bumpy. He went from unique and questionably great to boring.

Those who are quite fond of Burton may be aware of his short films and stories from before his fame. Those shorts and stories were amazing, but now, we are seeing a sell out. The next step in loserdum would be to make another cheesy film, but this time, staring Brendan Fraser and The Rock.

Burton went into Pee-wee's Big Adventure without much under his belt, but from there he made Beetlejuice. Now, his take on Pee-wee is absolutely amazing. Never before and never again have I ever cared about Pee-wee, and the film was amazing. From there he took a turn into his own imagination and delivered us Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice the horror comedy which visuals are literally out of this world.

Next, he was entrusted with one of the world's most identifiable icons, Batman. So few films had such an impact on my childhood than this one. Burton's Keaton Batman will forever go down in my books as one of the greatest action dramas of my life, and even higher on the list regarding nostalgia. The theme of his Batman film will always be one of the most recognizable themes of all film.

His next project is his most iconic, his twisted signature will probably not be viewed better in anything else. Edward Scissorhands. Edward Scissorhands was the film which the director actor duet begins for Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, and will last for a laundry list of additional films together. It feels that every year we see another Burton and Depp film.

Last and definitely not least can be refered to as just, Nightmare. The Nightmare Before Christmas is argued by some to be his greatest, and even if that were true, it would be his last great. His desired claymation style finally came to life in this film, and some of Burton's larger fan base desires more of this style from him as it seems he doesn't have a handle on live action anymore.

His filmography now takes us into projects like Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, Planet of the Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 9, and then Alice in Wonderland. I am starting to wonder where in wonderland is Burton? Burton last gave us a good film in Sweeney Todd in 2007 after a long break from anything desirable.

Is Tim Burton a sellout? Should he be cast down from atop the high esteemed director's list? Was he ever on it? It feels like his greatness was an illusion, that everyone was fooled by many years ago. Now, with his fame from Nightmare Before Christmas with Disney's marketing, it may seem that he is now in it for the buck vs. for the passion. He is a burnout.

Tim Burton is like the flashlight you once depended on, and now, in the dark, it is letting you down as the batteries have run down. But still, because if one day you might buy new batteries, you refuse to throw it out. There is sits, on the shelf, until new batteries arrive.

Review: The Coen's "The Big Lebowski" (1998)

I think there is a sense of debt movie goers actually owe the Coen brothers for delivering such a raw and honest film, portraying the life of "the dude". The character development in this feature some of the best in the industry. No modern hippie is more real, or more developed in even real life than Jeff Bridges portrays.

The supporting cast is stupendous. Never before and never again have we seen a performance nearly as great given by John Goodman. Each scene one after the other is almost more intense as the last. The Coens take you on a roller coaster ride for 2 hours and you hate when it ends. Even now, I want to hear about a sequel, after 12 years.

There are though a few random scenes of nudity and sexual content I could do without. Women show up out of the blue, naked on trampolines, multiple times in the film.

The dialogue in the film is just another home run at the hands of the Coens. I really don't know who I am more impressed with in the film, the directing or the acting. The story is also something to desire, how complex a simple idea can turn into while remaining top notch quality.

I am baffled at some of the reviews given by critics for this film, as the only flaw in the film is its sensuality and nudity. This is a movie about the worlds biggest unlucky loser and it is executed in almost every way amazing. It is just too bad the nudity and some of the sensuality is just such a speed bump in the film. When they happen, it feels like you freeze up until its over, and when a film does that for any reason, it takes a nasty hit. Subtract the nudity and it would be almost flawless.

"The Big Lebowski"
8 / 10

Review: Werner Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" (2009)

Werner Herzog is one of Hollywood's biggest mysteries. How he could be attached to such a variety of films is bizarre, but this one? This one was plucked out of the 90's style film making with a handful of Herzog moments. When those moments happen, it is unmistakable. Herzog really doesn't achieve anything above decent in this film as a director.

Nicolas Cage appears to still have an ounce of talent somewhere in his demon possessed, National Treasure accepting self. I think Nicolas Cage needs to start attaching himself to quality instead of quantity, it just makes sense when you have the talent needed. Leave the selling of souls to Brendan Fraser.

The film itself isn't sure what it is. Every few minutes it goes from bland to funny, from funny to exciting, then from exciting to boring, all the way to the end. Sprinkle that unsteadiness with an overdose of sexual content and you have a pile of offensive feces mixed into your excitable sequences.

Skip this one, there are plenty better on the shelves, like The French Connection. I think there are 2 reasons this film didn't flop. One, Herzog being the director, and second, Nicolas Cage's performance.

"Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans"
6.5 / 10

Review: "Toy Story 3" (2010)

I have been very pleased watching this movie. I did not see it in 3-D and will determine in the coming weeks whether to spend the additional cost to do so. But, from the non-3-D version of the film, delivered great fun. The folks at Pixar really do have an epic team putting together films. They know how to tell stories, using all the human techniques of displaying emotion in a story. This movie was successful in its delivery of suspense, excitement, and despair.

The character development in the Toy Story trilogy are among the possibly the best in animation, but also reaching among the top of all movies. I won't tell you the ending, but I will say it delivers 100% for all the Toy Story lovers through the past 15 years! This movie exists, as an example to why we love the movie experiences, from our youth, on up.

Toy Story has always made itself so applicable partly by using real toys or ones just like them, in order to connect with multiple age ranges. It is steady in that application even into the 3rd installment. So many things in these films I find myself attached to, or even bringing me back memories as a child. The goal was indeed accomplished. The 3rd installment was easily the best of the 3 movies in my opinion. If you haven't seen it yet, mark it on your "to do list".

One of the things holding these films back a little are the random moments of adult humor that feels inconsistent with the rest of the movie. They find a reason to appear to be cussing in a scene for the sake of laughter and that feels like them separating themselves from the younger audience. When they separate themselves from anyone to focus or benefit a specific age group, I think it hurts the movies. The moments do pass by almost as fast as the word/s are said, so it isn't awkward for more than a breathe or two. Overall though it is a great childrens film and a great adult film. In order to be a fan of the film, you require to have at least for a day of your life enjoyed playing with toys.

"Toy Story 3"
9 / 10

Review: 'The Woodsman' starring Kevin Bacon (2004)

In another school assigned film, I was this time, fortunate in seeing 'The Woodsman'.The only thing needed to be known about the film is that there is sexual content in the context of child molestation. These topics are gruesome and cause for disturbing thoughts and mixed emotions. Unlike most child molestation films this one goes further, not further necessarily in a more disturbing than usual direction, but a far more interesting and delivering one.

Kevin Bacon is the beneficiary of the abusive role in the film, as he takes a bat and knocks the role out of the park. I have been a fan of Kevin Bacon for a long while, but I just haven't been blown away by him like I have so many others. This film elevated him in my book, to a level I have not seen him on yet. His co-stars in the film include his real life wife and Mos Def, both providing excellent acting for what they were asked to do.

I don't want to give away an ounce of the punch this film gives, but I will say, this film grabs you from the first scene, and holds your attention well after the credits roll. The camera work, sound, acting, and all the other elements were done all together on the same level, making this film a consistent method of story telling and imagery.

Of course this film reaches limits and starts off with limited potentials, whether you examine the director, actors, etc., but for the quality given to us in the project, all 100% of the skills they possessed were used. The end messages of the film were acceptable, but with the story flowing the way it did, it would have been difficult to impossible to make the punch any better.

Gross, disgusting, great, thrilling, exciting, nasty, disturbing, wild, original ride.
*Warning! Heavy with nude sex scenes and sexual content regarding child molestation. NOT in anyway suitable for children and possibly adults. Think about the warning before deciding whether you watch it or not.*

"The Woodsman"

7.5 / 10

Review: "The French Connection" (1971)

Well... Not sure where to start exactly. Part of me wants to say different things about this flick. When I review other people critiques of this film, I agree with some of it and disagree with even more. Overall I think the film was a success, but I do think of myself as picky, or at least having a magnifying glass when I watch films. The magnifying glass when placed in front of the screen while this plays I do see many flaws. I think the film is now dated and I wish I saw it a bit ago, or even had the privilege to watch it before I was born, when it peaked.

Many critics say the film was fast paced, and I just cannot figure out what they mean. When I think fast paced I don't first think about 'Peewees Big Adventure', and that had more fast paced moments than this. So if someone asked me if this film was fast paced, I would tell them no, it would be a drama with some action.

Now, having said that, when the action does happen, it is some of the best and more suspenseful action that can be found on any reel. I feel comfortable saying this film had the best car chase of all films I have seen to date, and the chase involved a car and train. The excitement taken from that scene is just astounding. The flaw however is how that sequence begins. *Spoiler warning* When the sniper rains bullets on Popeye, and Popeye eventually makes it to the roof, the suspect is gone. Popeye locates the suspect once up on the roof and the man is running toward and almost under the bridge of railroad tracks. The very next scene is Popeye popping out from the building hot in pursuit just 20 yards from the suspect, as if the man waited for Popeye to come after him. I thought that was just absurd, I cannot imagine how the storytelling could be so unrealistic at that point. It stole much of the mojo the scene could have had. So far at this point Popeye had barely kept up with all his pursuits by means of luck and I think it would have been much better if they continued that for his character's sake and just for the sake of realism.

*Spoiler warning* Another scene that drove me up a wall was when the police acquire the car containing drugs. The mechanics tore the car down to every single nut and bolt, dropping the engine, taking the tires off the rims, and completely stripping down the interior. Once they find what they were looking for, they have it completely rebuilt from head to toe in less than a single evening without a scratch. Even the hidden location of the drugs was back to perfection as if nothing had happened. Now, I tried to justify this to myself for the story's sake, maybe they found a duplicate car? No, I just don't buy it. To find a car that an owner would recognize as not being his is an extremely hard task, let alone doing it well after the sun is down, and finding it before the sun comes up and reinstalling the "goods". I just cannot let this by me.

So, with both of those particular flaws, and some sprinkled unrealistic moments throughout the film I leave it now to critique the acting and story itself. The acting was almost solely done by Gene Hackman, at least on a quality base. Chief Martin Brody, I mean Roy Scheider was just, average at best. I have only seen Scheider worth a nickel in 'Jaws', and here he abandons Hackman to fend for the film by himself. So many of Gene Hackman's films are solely acted by himself, and sometimes I wonder what and where Hackman's great films are. I know this is supposed to be one of the chief projects but, he seems to play the same character in all his films, making him obviously range-less. I am still excited about seeing Hackman, but it is clear 'The Conversation' is his best.

This film surprised me a little, but gave me a bit less than I wanted from it. I thought the police officers in the film were just made too average for me to care, they actually felt dumb. Even the villains in the film felt dumb, in fact I am not sure a wise man existed in the whole story.

I do want to make a quick note regarding the film 'We Own the Night', and it is that it ripped a ton of material from 'The French Connection'. I thought 'We Own the Night' was a decent film, but now is far less in my book having seen its predecessor. This film was shot a bit too slow to keep my on the edge of my seat and the edge of my seat was where I wanted to be.

I would say see the film if you haven't just because it is regarded as an essential action piece, but don't build it up too much.

"The French Connection"
7/10

Review: "Hard Candy" (2005)

Well this morning I was told my class was going to watch a film called 'Hard candy' as an assignment relating to sexual abuse. The thought of a sexual abuse themed film wasn't exciting. I know a film with this theme, or as one of the themes can be successful as seen in 'Gone, Baby, Gone'. This film stars the 'Juno' star Ellen Page as the young girl. Her performance in this film is indeed a good one. The film's problem is definitely not the acting, and the story was probably portrayed correctly on film. The problem for me was the interest in story and the coated man-hater theme. Maybe it wasn't man-hater, but it was definitely full of girl-power.

I don't need to be told how bad sexual abuse in any manner is, especially the justification for retribution in this film. This film easily bothered the heavy majority of males who saw it along with myself. It is really hard to give a non-bias critique after being so bothered by the film.

The suspense of the film was its biggest success, but it was just too intense. It was like trying to open a gift you know has a deadly snake inside. No matter how you open it, you just aren't comfortable doing it, and if you knew the end result of this film, you probably wouldn't have bothered.

Unlike some, this one just isn't aided by controversy. I read one review which said, "You can sense that it wants to be talked about more than it wants to actually say anything", and I fully agree.

Overall I would recommend passing on this pile.

"Hard Candy"

5/10

What in the world is 'Ready Player One'?

Well in a bidding war, Warner Bros. wins again, as if no one else cares about spending money on rights to films. Fox would rather buy cheap and make cheap to maximize their income, or rely on Avatar to pump out 100 sequels with James "sold my soul" Cameron.

I guess I can rant all day, so moving on to this strange titled project. 'Ready Player One' is a debut novel written by the screenwriter of 'Fanboys', Ernie Cline. 'Fanboys' was so good at doing what they did for those they did it for I am absolutely sold that this guy is capable of entertaining me, but time will tell with the releasing news of the story. So far its being meshed with 'Avatar', 'Matrix', and ...'Willie Wonka'?

The story focuses on a teen who enters a virtual world to get away from real life. It sounds like a gamers dream and nightmare. Dream in fact because that is the goal of most fanatic gamers, and a nightmare for them because they will probably be painted in a not so appealing light with a project like this. When I saw the first 2 comparisons I was excited, and then when I heard that it was also being compared with Willie Wonka, I got nervous. The story is connected to good old Willie because the story takes the dieing creator and lottery inheritor theme. It is like the 'Matrix' obviously because of the virtual reality world he enters into. Then last, and very least is 'Avatar', which in my opinion is going to be mocking the popular game "World of Warcraft". The world the teen will probably enter into will probably be a huge shout out to the "WoW" addicts as the world he enters into will probably look similar, thus looking like 'Avatar'.

Once you put all the puzzle peices together I don't think the project sounds like it would be a serious flick, or it may be rubbing off of 'Tron' a bit too much from what is floating in my mind, but more of a mockery, funny, exciting, visually stunning film. I am not sold on its greatness, but if my assumptions are right, it could be a genius idea done 5 years too late. The gaming world is shifting, but very slowly. The creators of World of Warcraft have come almost to a stand still on producing new games because of the existence and popularity of World of Warcraft itself. The product is still making record setting financial numbers and the fans are steady. So why make another game? They have been releasing news of games for over 8 years, promising releases, and still nothing. The problem with releasing a new game would be that it would take business away from themselves. They are waiting for the WoW movement to trickle off, and it is, very very slowly. The game was most popular about 5 years ago and the writer of this story may just be too late for a smash hit. I think it can produce old memories, or still be relatable to those affected by the gaming addictions but not as timely as it could have been.

Obviously much of this is based on assumptions, but it just reeks of truth. Still, we haven't received much good movie news as of late so, the news of this is a little easier to be excited about.

Review: Sydney Pollack's "The Firm" (1993)

The film has many familiar faces, led by Tom Cruise and Gene Hackman. Cruise's character is a lawyer, recently graduated from Harvard Law School and takes a job offer from a less than prestigious law firm promising him and gifting him with amazing things if he takes the job. He does. Cruise's character engages in a dramatic thrill ride when he finds himself in a undesirable situation.

This thriller keeps you entertained from beginning to end, but there is a noticable drop in consistency about half way through. I think the film had an identity problem after the first hour and it finds itself and re-loses itself every few minutes after that. The movie is over 2 1/2 hours long and I think the speed of the film should have been faster than it was, maybe they could have shrunk the film to make it better, cutting out all the unnecessary moments.

The acting is actually surprisingly good from everyone in the film. Tom Cruise makes you more interested and sure of his ability as an actor in this film than most of his more recent work but still has the very similar type of character as he plays in most of his films. Gene Hackman on the other hand just elevates the film when he is in the scene. Gene Hackman has failed less at making me interested in any of his characters less than almost anyone else in Hollywood. Gene Hackman proves again that a legendary actor can play any size role, in any shape of a role, and makes the whole project that much better. This is why those legends cost so much to be filmed. The problem comes when those legends sell themselves out, using their past glory to pull in current paychecks, and we all have examples in mind.

The camera work in this film is as plain and average as it gets. There wasn't a single seen I thought was interesting for the film. The story, as I have not read the book by John Grisham, appears to be a decent one told decently. Decent stories can be made into great films given the right directors but directors show their colors when they misuse or don't produce what could have been made from the story given to them. Sidney Pollack as this film's director just makes the near endless list of directors that are capable of satisfying their audience, but never amazing them.

Sidney Pollack's best work was in Michael Clayton, a George Clooney carried film. In 'The Firm' you can see the attempt by the director to make something epic, but it misses. In almost all his films which I have seen, they all appear to have the same cover, trying to appear good on the outside so people will buy it, but when they do, they realize quality isn't as high as it may have appeared. I think if he tried a little less, normally a fail method, would serve him better. But I will say, there isn't another director that comes to mind, which tries to make epic films out of non-epic stories, and if he couldn't manage to get all the big time actors in his films to carry them, he wouldn't have had a job for very long.

This ride was fun, regardless of all the slander I have given it. The only regret I have with watching it would be the place it was on the order on my list of "to see movies", I would have dropped it closer to the bottom. For anyoen considering to watch this film, I would tell them there are better and more influential films to see before you see this, guaranteed.

"The Firm"
6/10

Review: "Les Miserables" (1998)

'Les Miserables'. What in the world did I think of this film? First I will say I think I built this film up a tad bit too much having heard a couple Broadway performers sing a couple songs based on the story. The performers were absolutely amazing and brought real emotion into their voices, but did the film live up to the expectations I built? No. Am I saying it failed? No.

First I will dig into the lead performances. The film is carried by 2 men, Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. Liam Neeson proves again to be a superior actor in Hollywood and it is a wonder why and how he isn't in better films than those he stars in. Neeson really does take the workload of the film on his own back from start to finish. His emotional moments are shared with his viewers, his eyes provide enough emotional element to carry any scene without dialogue while we are fully aware of what he is enduring.

The one big problem with Neeson should probably have the blame cast onto the director, Bille August. The problem is that Neeson doesn't appear to age at all in the film, from the beginning to the end he remains to appear the same age while the film feels to have moved about 30 years or more.

The second, and only other better than good performer in the film is Geoffrey Rush, and again like Neeson, is able to reveal his passions in just his eyes while we also are aware of his mind. The performance by Rush is absolutely and fully satisfying. I wouldn't place him on the same categorical shelf as Neeson as an actor in this film, but he does indeed satisfy.

Just like Neeson, there is also a problem, and the problem is in the end. I do not want to give away the ending or reveal any spoilers because the film should be enjoyed by those who have not seen it without tampering or possibly ruining the build. I am unfamiliar with the story as it is written and am not sure how accurate the ending is portrayed in the film, but I didn't feel the actions of Rush's character were believable and understood by the story that was told specifically in the film. Maybe it was just me, but I didn't pull from it an obvious reason.

I really don't want to talk about Uma Thurman, like I don't want to talk about anyone else in the film. Thurman's performance can be summed up in 3 words, "mediocre at best". The other actress, who plays the young girl, Cosette, portrays a snobby teenager who I think we have all come in counter with in middle school. I really wasn't convinced in her performance than she was raised in the time which was claimed. The sets were good, sometimes great, but its too bad we rarely got 2 key elements accomplished well in the same scene. For example, it was either great imagery OR great performance.

The film had moments of good and great costumes, while others were just terrible. For a quick example of terrible, the guards who appear in all portions of the film have unrealistically clean and brand new outfits. I would like to see a Cohen brothers' take on this film as they have a much keener eye for realistic costume.

If I were to stop the film half way and rate the film based upon what i had been given so far, I would rate it about a 9/10. As the film continued, the second half dropped off and I would find myself rating it around a 6.5/10. As soon as Neeson arrives at the tavern (again, don't want to reveal key elements) after a confrontation with Rush, the story drops. The film had been up to that point carried almost entirely by both Neeson and Rush, but after this point, other actors start invading the screen with mild or worse performances. The closer to the ending of the film I got, the more disinterested I became.

Overall the story was phenomenal, but I just wasn't convinced the second half of this director's storytelling was correctly interpreted.

When the film really wants you to feel the emotions of the story, you feel them.

"Les Miserable"
7/10

Review: "The Blind Side" (2009)

Well, I have yet to review this film, although I have now seen it 1 + 1/2 times. I'm really not too sure where to start but the first thing that comes to mind is the fact the film was nominated for several awards. With the Academy now allotting 10 Best Picture slots, it is conceivable hwo this film was nominated, but just unrealistic in my perception of the film. This movie is filled to the brim, and then overflowing with cliche and cheesy failed attempts at accomplishing emotion. The first half of the film is obviously better than the second, creating an off the wall and unsteady story.

The character development is fine for the character Michael Oher, played by Quinton Aaron, but the acting is a bit underdeveloped. Sandra Bullock on the other hand, having seen the real character who she portrays in an interview, appears to have nailed the role. It is still upsetting however to see her nominated, solely because I seriously didn't enjoy a single moment of the character she played.

The movie felt like the quality of a Beethoven movie, and for it to even be nominated feels like I am watching Beethoven win awards. It is just upsetting. I have met very few people who have seen the film and enjoyed it, and I fear they may have been blinded and tricked into 2 hours of an American television movie. If this movie came out on a local network channel, and I happen to watch it, I just might have enjoyed myself more having the expectations drastically lowered. But unfortunately I watched the film after all the nominations and the bar was raised.

Films like these are responsible for "white" American cliches, which are really upsetting. Almost every scene feels exaggerated. If the story stuck with Quinton Aaron as Michael Oher, the film may have been 100 times better. Outside of his performance and intriguing character details, the film would be absolutely empty for me.

I really hope the director, John Lee Hancock doesn't show up again in Hollywood until it becomes more apparent he has learned how to make a film.

"The Blind Side"
4.5/10

Review: Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" (2006)

This movie just didn't affect me like it did for so many other people. I already owned "Donnie Brasco' and had watched it growing up, so when I saw 'The Departed', it was just too similar of an idea and done in lesser means. The story in 'The Departed' was just way too circumstantial and made it a bit unbelievable. The acting of the film is another portion I would call into question. Jack Nicholson provides a better performance in his big toe in this movie than everyone else around him. DiCaprio, Wahlberg, and Damon are also good at what they are doing but it is almost everybody else in the movie that drives me crazy. The worst portion of the film in terms of acting goes to a scene with Jack Nicholson and 15 Asian actors. The Asian actors here are some of the most amateur and worthless extras in Hollywood in my opinion, while none of them gives what they should.

Donnie Brasco is carried solely by Depp and Pacino while 'The Departed' has a cast that no Las Vegas hotel could contain. The character development in this film is a huge problem, they give you a couple facts and then throw you on the movie train, and the train isn't moving. I just don't believe DiCaprio's character or Damon's character for more than 10 minutes.

The imagery or cinematography in the film is awesome, but its just not supported with a near awesome performance. It would be like a broadway play having a set stage looking amazing and a couple of actors come out, urinate on stage and walk off. You could only say, "they urinated pretty good".

Jack Nicholson has me sold in almost everything he does, this film included. Every scene with him in it is far more interesting than all the other scenes. His hand and facial gestures are far superior to Damon and DiCaprio's, everything. So far the people I talk to who have seen 'The Departed' before 'Donnie Brasco' say 'The Departed' is superior, but it is the opposite for those who have seen 'Donnie Brasco' first. All in all Donnie Brasco was directed by Mike Newell who has made 'Harry Potter XXXVII', while 'The Departed' was accused of being a stolen story from a Japanese film made by Scorsese, who has lain claim to more great films than perhaps anyone else in Hollywood.

Do I think the film appears better because Scorsese made it? Yup. Award goes to Scorsese for "Scorsese", instead of to Scorsese for 'The Departed'.

RottenTomatoes.com:
Donnie Brasco = 7.8
The Departed = 8.2

"The Departed"
7/10

"Donnie Brasco"
TBD

Review: John Hillcoat's "The Road" (2009)

Watched 'The Road' yesterday for the second time in a week. This movie really does give me everything I want in this type of apocalyptic feature. The acting is superb, the imagery is stellar, and the story seems to carry all the way through on the same pace. There isn't a single scene that looks fake or out of place, and every scene of dialogue is perfect for what the intentions were. The only concern I would have is the paper to camera translation being loyal. I have not read the book, but from what I have been told by those who have all say this was an extremely great take and all the scenes were spot on with their own imagination. The problem they say, is that they cut out a lot of the story to fit it into a film, which I am not excited about. I wish people would make films that extend past the standard times of 2 hours if that is what it takes to do the most justice to the writers' work.
Even after seeing it 6 times now, I am still not fully sold on my theories of the film. They leave just enough open for interpretation that it fully satisfies my curiosity while I myself can play an imaginative role in the story.
Casting and score couldn't be more perfect. I am just absolutely amazed at this film every time I think about it. I think you know a film is great to you when you go out of your way to make other people watch it. There was just a lot in this film that astounded me. This film really does reveal a desolate world without God. This is a must see.

Entertainment Weekly's top 100... and my top 100.

Entertainment Weekly:
1. Homer Simpson
2. Harry Potter
3. Buffy
4. Tony Soprano
5. The Joker
6. Rachel (Friends t.v. show)
7. Edward Scissorhands
8. Hannibal Lecter
9. Carrie (Sex and the City)
10. Spongebob Squarepants
11. Kramer (Seinfeld)
12. Mulder + Scully (X-Files)
13. Jack Sparrow
14. The Dude (Big Lebowski)
15. Shrek
16. Bridget Jones
17. Lara Croft (Video game)
18. Sue Sylvester (Glee t.v. show)
19. Morpheus
20. Ally McBeal
21. Roseanne
22. Cartman (Southpark)
23. Austin Powers
24. Felicity (Felicity t.v. show)
25. Woody (Toy Story)
26. Kavalier and Clay (Book)
27. Frasier
28. Madea (Tyler Perry's comedy series)
29. Vincent + Jules (Pulp Fiction)
30. Stephen Colbert (Colbert Report t.v. show)
31. Forrest Gump
32. Beavis and Butt-Head
33. Sarah Connor (Terminator 2)
34. Cher (Clueless)
35. Dexter
36. Gollum (Lord of the Rings)
37. Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects)
38. Elmo
39. Gob (Arrested Development t.v. show)
40. Ron Burgundy
41. Harold and Kumar
42. Sydney (Alias t.v. show)
43. Cal Stephanides (Book)
44. Jack Bauer
45. Stewie Griffin
46. Jerry Maguire
47. Corky St. Clair (Waiting for Guffman)
48. Red (Shawshank's Redemption)
49. Vivian (Pretty Woman)
50. Pearl (The Landlord)
51. Omar Little (HBO's The Wire)
52. Annie Wilkes (Misery)
53. Edward (Twilight)
54. Juno
55. Tracy Jordan (30 Rock)
56. Barney (How I Met Your Mother)
57. Clayton Bigsby (Dave Chappelle)
58. Thelma + Louise
59. Master Chief (Video Game)
60. Mary Jones (Precious)
61. Vic (The Shield)
62. Jimmy Corrigan (Book)
63. John Locke (LOST t.v. show)
64. Maximus (Gladiator)
65. Lorelai + Rory (Gilmore Girls)
66. Allie + Noah (The Notebook)
67. Borat
68. Effie White (Dreamgirls)
69. Miranda (The Devil Wears Prada)
70. Marry (Saturday Night Live - Superstar)
71. Alonzo (Training Day)
72. Kara "Starbuck" (Battlestar Galactica)
73. Catherine (Basic Instinct)
74. Don Draper (Mad Men)
75. David Brent (U.K.'s The Office)
76. Tyler (Fight Club)
77. Mimi (RENT)
78. Patty (Damages)
79. Elphaba (Broadway Musical)
80. Gorillaz (Animated characters from the band)
81. Amanda (Melrose Place)
82. Tracy (Election)
83. Jen Yu (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
84. Dr. Gregory House (House)
85. Daniel Plainview (There Will be Blood)
86. Will + Grace
87. Tony Stark
88. Napoleon Dynamite
89. Wikus (District 9)
90. Marge (Fargo)
91. Hancock
92. Christopher Boone (Book)
93. Game Boys (3 Video Game characters)
94. Truman (Truman Show)
95. Wilhelmina (Ugly Betty)
96. Bernie Mac (Bernie Mac Show)
97. Violet (August: Osage County)
98. Lisbeth Salander (Book)
99. The Bride (Kill Bill)
100. Tim Riggins (Friday Night Lights)

This list is full of amazing negligence. When I saw some of these names, I didn't know who a lot of them were, and if one is going to make a case for being in the top 100 "greatest" list of the last 20 years, the chances of someone never having heard some of these names is remarkable. I would understand if it was a few that slipped by, but not as many as this just did. Another thing is that I feel they really jacked up the list, missing key players and adding sub-par ones in favor of popular actors or writers of the recent years, for example Hancock with Will Smith, why not just throw in the Fresh Prince? The Fresh Prince was way more effecting and popular than a lame film's character. When you look at the top 10, most of them make sense, as effective as these characters were on our culture throughout the years, but I might not agree with the arrangement, or even the presence on the top 10. I could sit here and keep arguing each character on the list, or I can just add my own to show where I feel there should have been differences. The magazine also broke some rules in my opinion, by adding some double characters in single slots when some should be singles, or adding characters which existed before 1990. Homer Simpson was created in 1989, but more effective in the years after, so I'll give it to them. Here is my list (50), counting down. (Note, I am note making a "greatest" list, but rather a biggest impact/most influential/and most iconic list as it appears to have been for Entertainment's list. Making a truly "greatest" list would take much more time to make.)
50. Juno
49. Dr. Greene + Dr. Carter (E.R.)
48. Thelma and Louise (Film)
47. Tommy Callahan (Tommy Boy)
46. Vivian (Pretty Woman)
45. Jules (Pulp Fiction)
44. Buffy (Show)
43. Jen Yu (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
42. Donnie Darko
41. Frasier (Show)
40. Mulder + Scully (X-Files)
39. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)
38. Peter Parker (Movie[Spider-Man]/Comic/Show/Game)
37. Nicky Santoro + Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci in Goodfellas + Casino)
36. Kramer (Seinfeld)
35. Roseanne (Show)
34. Morpheus + Neo (Matrix)
33. Ron Burgundy (Anchorman)
32. Tony Stark (Movie[Iron Man]/Comic/Show/Game)
31. Beavis and Butt-Head (Show)
30. Rachel (Friends)
29. Edward Cullen (Twilight)
28. The Bride (Kill Bill)
27. Wolverine (Movie[X-Men]/Comic/Show/Game)
26. Mario (Game)
25. Napoleon Dynamite (Film)
24. James Bond (Movie/Game)
23. Cpt. Picard (Star Trek)
22. Jack + Rose (Titanic)
21. Ave Ventura (Film)
20. William Wallace (Braveheart)
19. Kevin McCallister (Home Alone)
18. Lloyd Christmas (Dumb and Dumber)
17. Forrest Gump (Film)
16. Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean)
15. Gollum (Lord of the Rings)
14. Elmo (Sesame Street)
13. Edward Scissorhands (Film)
12. Jack Bauer (24)
11. Tony Soprano (Sopranos)
10. The Terminator (T2)
9. Cartman (South Park)
8. Carrie (Sex and the City)
7. Harry Potter (Film/Book)
6. Buzz Lightyear (Pixar Film)
5. Spongebob (Show)
4. Shrek (Film)
3. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Show/Game/Movie)
2. George Bush (American Mascot)
1. Homer Simpson (The Simpsons)

It wasn't as hard to create a list as it was to put in order of "greatness". I am not sure how I like the order necessarily, but for the most part I think it is right. More important to note the names on the list that may not have been on the previous one. Maybe I missed some, maybe I didn't. I didn't want to add names to the list which I wasn't at ALL familiar with or heard of, like Battlestar Galactica. I know it was just one influential show for some people, but I never heard of it till just a couple years ago, and I don't have a single image that comes to mind when I hear the name. I wasn't excited about naming some names, especially in the order I did, and for the most part I don't care for most of the list but it was what i thought to be most iconic or influential. I will make a list sometime of the "greats" in MY last 20 years, but for now, this is it.

Till next time...

Spoon - Teaser Trailer - Sharlto Copley... the guy from 'District 9' made his directing debut..

"SPOON"
Directed by: Sharlto Copley

Robert Duvall...

I know Dennis Hopper has passed and I haven't acknowledged it much, but its probably because he never affected me, hardly at all. I remember him most as the bad guy in 'Speed'. Dennis made so many random films with such little critical acclaim I think that is what tainted his name. The film he may be known best for, 'Easy Rider' has gone unseen by me. It is on the long list of must-see films and I anticipate it to be one of his better performances, but so far as the films that I know him from go, it just isn't good. "Super Mario Bros." tops the embarrassing list, but the bad list goes on and on.

Even Heath Ledger's death made Charlton Heston a shadow at the award shows and in the media. Charlton Heston gave more to film than Heath's big toe. I am not one to celebrate or mourn deaths almost at all, especially from people in Hollywood, but what I am willing to do is honor the sweat of the men and women who paved the way for great cinema.

A name I would like to devote a moment to is Robert Duvall. In recent years I have watched countless films starring Duvall, and every time a camera captures a moment with him in it, the film becomes larger, and a more quality picture.

As an actor Duvall has taken part in well over a hundred characters on the screen. He is known as a late bloomer at the age of 31 in "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which has also gone unseen by me and on the long list as well). He has starred in "The Godfather" series, "Apocalypse Now", "The Apostle", the original "True Grit", "MASH", "THX 1138", "Joe Kidd" with Clint Eastwood, original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "The Natural", "Falling Down", "Open Range". He also appeared in recent work such as: "The Road" and "Crazy Heart". Every time I see Duvall on the screen I become more interested in what will be said. I believe he will go down in my book as one of the greatest ever, as the man has only aged twice, once as a middle aged man and second as an old man. He is great, I intend to take a closer look at his work which I have not had the pleasure of taking the time to see yet.

Review: David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" (2005)

This movie didn't give me what it did as an early film devourer a handful of years ago. Since I have engaged in more films, particularly more quality films, I have found myself not immune to bad acting. Bad acting didn't exist till about 5 years ago, just after I watched this for the first time.

I think this movie made it passed the radars of major critics. The reviews for the film I find very unjustified. The performance by Viggo Mortensen is extremely good as almost always, but the only other actor who provides an above decent to good performance is Ed Harris as the villain. Viggo's character, Tom Stall, has a family in a reclusive town and owns a small diner. When one day a group of people accuse him of being someone else.

Viggo was a great casting choice for the film, but unfortunately his son in the film was a dramatic over-actor with little displayed talent. There are a handful of scenes where the acting becomes broken glass, fully revealing what flaws there are.

The story is definitely an intriguing one, and it is Viggo's performance and the story which carries the film, but in order to be considered more than a successful outing at the movies, your whole ensemble needs to be together and on the same page, where this one wasn't. The sensuality in the film is also a huge speed bump. The director wants to build the relationship between Viggo and his wife but he only builds their relationship with sex. It is as if the only thing holding their love for each other together is exactly that, because that was all the director showed us. If the director decided to show us what a loving relationship might look like he might have taken his camera out from the bedroom and make the "strong" relationship believable.

In the end the speed bumps spilled my drink all over while I steered my car into an embankment. I just couldn't wait for the movie to be done, even though I didn't want to wave goodbye to Viggo's character. In a similar genre, Viggo shines much better in 'Eastern Promises', which is also sensual with scattered nudity. Viggo and nudity are something you must be aware of when you watch him perform in almost everything but Lord of the Rings. Boo to nudity and sensuality, directors just show themselves lacking skills in storytelling when they require to use it to tell a sensual story. So many more successful directors show their talent in giving us a loving and intimate relationships without having to force us to watch an overdose of sensuality.

"A History of Violence"
6.5 / 10

Review: "Crazy Heart" (2009)

Jeff Bridges to me has been a mystery for a long time. He is referred to as one of the legends in Hollywood, but I just haven't felt the same, till now. Before 'Crazy Heart', I knew him from 'The Big Lebowski', 'Iron Man', 'Tron', 'Starman', and a few others. The only film that I had seen him in and stood out was 'The Big Lebowski'. He is playing a role for the upcoming Cohen Brothers' film 'True Grit', my most anticipated film of the year.

Crazy Heart was truly a great character study done well by about everyone in the film, I don't want to say everyone because there might have been an extra somewhere in the midst that didn't fulfill the role. Really great acting throughout the piece. I have zero interest in country music or the life of a country musician but for 2 hours he made me desire it. The music itself in the film was good and performed even better.

The story of the movie was far above average and easily justifiable to add to the 10 nominations list at the Academy for 'Best Picture'. 'The Blind Side', 'Up', 'District 9', and 'Avatar' all polluted the 10 nominations which Crazy Heart deserved.

The film is carried by ridiculously good acting, with a good casting choice. There are just a couple sensual scenes, but no nudity. The film should still be avoided by anyone 17 and under.

There were several moments of the film that I had to pause the footage and just say "wow". There were so many scenes which screamed perfection in translating from paper to camera. The story will take you into a life of a drunken has been and all the glory that comes with it, to happy moments, and then take you to awkward old groupie moments.

There really isn't much to say negatively about the film other than some sensual scenes that could have been either cut or edited to be less sensual, but overall this appears to be a film with a prefect take on what was written. The film will not rock your socks, it probably won't reach the top 5 list of 2009, but it is surely a great investment of 2 hours to film.

"Crazy Heart"
8 / 10