2011... Which directors don't currently have anything slated?

Coen Brothers don't have anything announced now that "True Grit" is done, finished, and released. Perhaps they are on vacation after giving us what, 6 films in 5 years? Wow. Great run. I don't mind a break, but with the excitement they have given me in that time, I would surely get withdrawals soon enough.

Christopher Nolan is focused on giving us "Dark Knight Rises", slated for 2012. Nolan has given me the expectations of a film every year and a half. He better keep that steady too.

Mel Gibson, on his 4 or 5 year running Hollywood shun, has nothing in terms of film directing written in his schedule. Its too bad too, word around the campfire was that we could have seen a great film about vikings. Mel Gibson needs to hire some more publicists, good ones, and get his image back from destroyed to just cracked. No one cared when he was just cracked. It was when he was cracked that he gave us great films.

This one is better news... M. Night Shyamalan. He isn't slated for anything since "Last Airbender" and "Devil". I think most of America, and perhaps the world is happy about that too. After seeing him create so much garbage, people may want to just cast off his successes into the same lake of fire with the rest and forget he ever took a breath of air.

Danny Boyle, after "127 Hours" has nothing in the works for 2011 in the life of film making. Its too bad too, I would have liked him to jump right into a follow-up film, like Kathryn Bigelow after "Hurt Locker".

Paul Thomas Anderson, rumored to create a film about scientology, had been postponed... indefinitely... for now... Since making what I hail as the greatest film ever executed in "There Will Be Blood", he hasn't made any promises. There is nothing to show for work in progress from this 'on the fence' [of greatness], director.

Ben Affleck will be on a bit of a hiatus as he takes on more of a role as father in the life of his child. He has no film on the table to be directed, or even rumored, for now.

Roman Polanski... a man America probably won't be excited to support from here on out. There will be enough people in America to sustain a profit for him if he decided to do so, as long as the government doesn't come into things. His legal situation probably locked up his future success, what he is right now, will probably be it for him. He doesn't have anything being worked on until 2012, and not much is known in terms of the specifics of range of release.

Quentin Tarantino has been quiet since last year's "Inglorious Bastards". His next work in slated for 2014, that work being the next 'Kill Bill' installment. I don't care too much for Tarantino being quiet, I think his work is on course to compete with the best, but I would hate to see gaps. I am greedy. I want Tarantino 2 or 3 times by 2014.

David Lynch is yet another name who could possibly be in silence for some time, as no rumors can be found with legs for work in 2011.

Michael Moore... well we have what 2 or so years left of Obama, and if we are lucky, we will get ourselves a Republican after that, so perhaps we won't see Moore for another 3 or 4 years. That is unless he makes a documentary about 'WikiLeaks'.

Wes Anderson will also be absent, as nothing is on his plate right now.

George Lucas still hasn't fulfilled promises. 5 years running on empty words. Lucas, I cannot wait for the day all the little Lucas'ites take your estate and proclaim ridiculousness and taint you more than you did to yourself. I want a Star Wars remake, there I said it.

This is all my brain can think of right this moment... perhaps more shall come to memory in the next few days or so.

Now that 2010 is over... lets look to 2011!

January:

14th - "Green Hornet" (Action/Comedy, Staring S. Rogen)

21st - "The Way Back" (Action/Drama, Directed by Peter Weir)

February:

18th - "Unknown" (Thriller/Drama, Staring L. Neeson)

March:
4th - "Apollo 18" (Science Fiction, Director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego's first English film)

11th - "Battle: Los Angeles" (Science Fiction, Staring A. Eckhart)

18th - "Paul" (Sci-Fi Comedy, Staring N. Frost, S. Pegg, S. Rogen)

April:

1st - "Source Code" (Action/Drama, Directed by Duncan Jones, Staring J. Gyllenhaal)

8th - "Hanna" (Action/Thriller, Directed by Joe Wright)

29th - "Fast Five" (Action, Staring V. Diesel, D. Johnson)

May:

6th - "Thor" (Fantasy, Directed by Kenneth Branagh, Staring C. Hemsworth, N. Portman)

20th - "The Hangover 2" (Comedy)

27th - "Kung Fu Panda 2" (Animated/Comedy, Staring J. Black)

27th - "The Tree of Life" (Drama, Directed by Terrence Malick, Staring B. Pitt, S. Penn)

June:

3rd - "X-Men: First Class" (Fantasy, Directed by Matthew Vaughn, Staring J. McAvoy, K. Bacon)

10th - "Super 8" (Science Fiction, Directed by J.J. Abrams)

17th - "Green Lantern" (Fantasy, Staring R. Reynolds, P. Sarsgaard)

24th - "Cars 2" (Animated/Comedy, Staring O. Wilson, Larry the Cable Guy)

24th - "Rise of the Apes" (Science Fiction, Staring J. Franco, J. Lithgow)

Films beyond this point are less identified. Film trailers have more than likely not yet been released, and based on the director, production company, cast, and plot, I have added or subtracted from the list.

July:

1st - "Larry Crowne" (Drama, Directed/Written/Staring Tom Hanks)

1st - "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" (Science Fiction, Directed by Michael Bay)

15th - "Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallos: Part 2" (Fantasy, Directed by David Yates)

15th - "The Sitter" (Comedy, Staring Jonah Hill, Sam Rockwell)

15th - "Winnie the Pooh" (Animation, Staring Craig Ferguson)

22nd - "Captain America: The First Avenger" (Fantasy, Directed by J. Johnston, Staring C. Evans)

29th - "Cowboys & Aliens" (Science Fiction, Directed by Jon Favreau, Staring D. Craig)

August:

5th - "The Darkest Hour" (Science Fiction, Directed by Chris Gorak, Staring Emile Hirsch)

19th - "Conan the Barbarian" (Fantasy)

September:

23rd - "Abduction" (Drama/Thriller)

23rd - "Moneyball" (Drama, Staring B. Pitt, Jonah Hill, P. Seymour Hoffman)

30th - "Dream House" (Drama, Thriller, Directed by Jim Sheridan, Staring D. Craig)

October:

14th - "The Thing" (Science Fiction, prequel)

21st - "Contagion" (Drama/Thriller, Staring M. Damon, G. Paltrow, K. Winslet, J. Law)

November:

18th - "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1" (Fantasy, Staring K. Stewart, R. Pattinson)

December:

9th - "Hugo Cabret" (Drama, Directed by M. Scorsese, Staring C. Moretz, J. Law, B. Kingsly, S. Baron Cohen, C. Lee)

16th - "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" (Action/Thriller, Staring T. Cruise, J. Renner, J. Holloway)

16th - "Sherlock Holmes 2" (Action/Comedy, Staring R. Downey Jr., J. Law)

21st - "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" (Drama, Directed by David Fincher, Staring D. Craig)

23rd - "The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn" (Animated/Adventure, Directed by S. Spielberg)

23rd - "We Bought a Zoo" (Drama, Directed by Cameron Crowe, Staring M. Damon)

No Release Dates - 2011

- "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" (Horror, Guided/Produced by Guillermo del Toro)

- "The Wolverine" (Fantasy, Directed by Darren Aronofsky, Staring Hugh Jackman)

I will add to the list, and report as more films come to my attention...

My response to Drew McWeeny's 'Top 10' on HitFlix.com

10. "A Serbian Film" - I have never heard of this film before, and in the clip he showed on his site, and what he had to say about it drops my interest below zero. There are certain defilements I won't subject myself to, no matter the quality of film, otherwise where does it end? Quality doesn't determine whether or not something bad is good.

9. "Inception" - I was surprised to hear anyone letting this film end up outside of the top 5. I never thought it was quite the 'Best Picture', but worth a nomination within the top 5.

8. "True Grit" - I liked seeing this in a similar slot as I gave it.

7. "Four Lions" - I remember seeing the trailer for this before, and it looked interesting. I am interested to see this film, it is probably the most interesting film I have not yet seen this year.

6. "Toy Story 3" - I hail the film in a similar slot, for similar reasons as Drew. I am sold here as well.

5. "I Saw the Devil" - I never heard of the film before seeing his list, and when he compared it to "Silence of the Lambs" and then called it better, I was much more interested. I get a little nervous as well when thinking about that, because the concepts in "Silence of the Lambs" is really dark, and when you enter an even darker version of those concepts, it could distort the line of defilement as well. I do not desire to want to rip my eyes out during a film, however real it seems.

4. "Rabbit Hole" - Snooze.

3. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" - This film is way too high on a top 10 list for me. Certain things were good in the film, but it just didn't please me nearly as much as other films throughout the year.

2. "Blue Valentine" - Never heard of it. I am amazed at the amount of films on this lest in which I am unfamiliar of. I might be the one man who became a fan of "The Notebook", but Ryan Gosling is a much more interesting male actor in a romance than anyone else I have seen. I feel like he is just a more believable person in these roles. He was good in "Half Nelson", "Fracture", and "The Believer" as well. When I watched the previews for this film, seeing his face gave me a bit more confidence in the film being high on Drew's list.

1. "Black Swan" - This was borderline for me, whether or not I should have seen this film before proclaiming a 'Top' list. I was interested in the film, but for some reason I didn't feel the urge to come running when it released. Nothing reached out to me. Darren Aronofsky being the director makes the project a bit more interesting, but it also adds a heavier censorship warning. I am sure he will be able to deliver exactly what he wants in the film, I just don't know if I want a bite.

A Look Back at FILM in 2010

Now that the end of the year is an inch away, and every film to be desired has been released, its as fair as ever to begin discussing the greatest of the year. There are some films which went unseen, like "Stone", "Conviction", "Skyline", "How to Train Your Dragon", "Black Swan", "Wall Street: Money Never Stops", "Catfish", and "Harry Brown", but I haven't been given a reason to think these films would impact a 'Top' list.

My choice for 'Best Picture' this year would go to "127 Hours". Runners up:

2. The Social Network

3. Inception

4. The Town

5. Toy Story 3

6. True Grit

7. Shutter Island

8. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

9. Kick-Ass

10. Tron Legacy

In trying to figure out my list, I was surprised to see Tron making it into the top 10, but the competition outside of the top 5 started to drift rapidly. Runners up to the 'Top 10' were:

-Let Me In

-Iron Man 2

-Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

-The Fighter

-The Karate Kid

This year has been a good year in film, there were many outings to the big screen, many with disappointments but that will come with many releases. There were certain films which I expected to be better than they were. "True Grit" was one of them, but still was a solid enough film to project onto the 'Top 10'. Other disappointments include some of the other films on my list, but the majority were films that couldn't make a top 20 list on the year.

-Get Low

-Alice in Wonderland

-The Wolfman

-A-Team

-Jonah Hex

-The Last Airbender

All in all, I would settle with this ratio of pleasing vs. disappointing any year. There are very few years in which deliver so many good solid films. With the emergence of a few more directors who know what they are doing, we are probably going to see similar ratios from now on. Perhaps with additional sprinkles on top with beloved comic-book films from Marvel. The Coen Brothers are giving us at least 1 film a year now. Christopher Nolan every other year and Scorsese about every 2-3 years. We also see other directors stepping into the spotlight with great works, like Kathryn Bigelow, John Hillcoat, Jon Favreau, Matthew Vaughn, Ben Affleck, David Fincher, and Danny Boyle. I cannot wait to see more directors come out of hiding with great talent, and would love to see these directors sacrificing much of their free time to keep producing great films.

Review: Coen Brothers' "True Grit" (2010)

The Coen brothers deliver yet another good film. The Coens give me more and more insight on film with every release, good or bad. "True Grit" showed me that the Coens realize that every moment being filmed has a right way and a wrong way in processing it. The Coens trend toward putting together a fully capable cast through and through. It is better to have more surreal side characters and a more surreal environment and a mediocre star than to have a great star and mediocre everything else. When the environment is right, the whole cast is better, and when the whole cast is better, the star is elevated. The star rarely elevates the poop around him. The Coens make sure everything is right, and then let everyone elevate in perfection.

This film gave us a few interesting characters, some interesting faces, with some interesting shots. Jeff Bridges did not give me the performance I was hoping for, but what I was hoping for may not be very fair. I had recently seen his performance in "Crazy Heart", and wanted that actor, that character back so badly, that I felt it might happen in this. It didn't. You would have to be a diamond expert, with every magnifying glass at your disposal to try and identify flaws in the performance. Even a perfect diamond however, doesn't necessarily guarantee us the best shine. I don't feel like the role Jeff Bridges played pumped out more than good solid acting. There are moments in some films where when it ends, I get sad that the character just might never be seen again. Where a performance is so profound that it becomes one of my absolute favorites, as in "Crazy Heart" and not in "True Grit". If you want to see a solid, well performed 'gritty' man in any genre, "True Grit" gives you that.

The actress, Hailee Steinfeld, played her role exceptionally well never having had the experience of performing in film before. Her performance showed the same flaws as Jeff Bridges' role, impossible to see unless perhaps looking for flaws. Matt Damon however was the weaker link of the film I felt. Matt Damon never felt as developed as the rest, and didn't feel like he quite belonged in the era picture. I never fully believed he was a cowboy, or could be a cowboy, in any context. I would have preferred a MAN play his role. As for Josh Brolin, his part couldn't have been better given the amount of time he had to develop himself. For just a few moments of screen time, his presence and performance gave much more in the time given, than anyone else in the film. Before I conclude my words on the actors in the film, Barry Pepper, an actor I always wondered why I never saw more of, gave yet another interesting performance. Pepper, oh Pepper, show up more in good things, let your skill be revealed! His villainous character was unique in that he wasn't like any other cliche cowboy villain, instead, had depth.

A beautiful film, with very good performances, very well executed. Anyone should enjoy themselves watching this. I think this is your average Coen brothers film.

"True Grit"

8 / 10

Christian Bale's next piece

Christian Bale seems to keep delivering movie after movie. At the rate he is going, he will deliver his face to huge iconic characters, great roles, and even better performances. He is in the spotlight for most American film lovers and Bale could now be heading to China.

In China sits Zhang Yimou, the man who delivered films most of which will go unmentioned for Americans, but those America will have heard of; "Hero", "House of Flying Daggers", and "A Woman, a Gun, and a Noodle Shop" (a film based on the 1984 Coen Brothers' film).

Zhang Yimou is putting together the pieces to film a story set in World War II, in China, where a priest sheltered 13 young prostitutes who aid against the Japanese. History records that at least 150,000 people were killed during this specific time and place. Bale will be playing the part of the priest, as Zhang Yimou was most pleased with his studying in the historical event.

The event itself isn't going to be a feel-good piece. During the spread of the six-week event there was mass rape and mass murder. Nearly half the amount of people killed, estimated between 150,000-300,000 people, were a group of raped women. This story will surely not draw much support from Japan. Japan believes the whole event to be a fabrication or at least a lot of exaggerations.

On December 19th 1937, Reverend James M. McCallum wrote in his diary:

"I know not where to end. Never I have heard or read such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1,000 cases a night, and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disapproval, there is a bayonet stab or a bullet ... People are hysterical ... Women are being carried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole Japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases."

The film will probably cause political issues, and the story was written to include an American, which could lead to further problems. The story is more than likely going to show us a one sided perception of what happened through made-up characters. "Based on a true story" will probably be a loose term.

Regardless of the accuracy of the story, casting Christian Bale as the lead man is surely a step in the right direction in delivering a good film. I cannot wait to hear more about the film as time goes on.

Review: "Righteous Kill" (2010)

I don't want to take long. I think most of our aging stars in Hollywood have sold themselves to stinky piles of feces. Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are just 2 of those sell outs. De Niro pumps out what feels like 5 films a year, and none of them worth breathing on. Meet the Parents, Meet the Fockers, Meet Meet Meet! It is weird to think his last interesting outing was via Tarantino in "Jackie Brown" (1997) 13 years ago. As for Al Pacino, the same amount of films are being pumped out, and slightly more in recent film ended up on a decent shelf, "Insomnia" (2002) being the latest... just a touch under a decade. Before that was also 13 years ago, in "Donnie Brasco" (1997).

Sold film souls = Unforgiving.

I could keep going, but the conversation would touch on familiar topics regarding the whole of Hollywood. Legends tainting their legendary status... its sad really.

Review: Paul Greengrass's "Green Zone" (2010)

Paul Greengrass is the director who brought to us both of the 'Bourne' sequels, and "United 93". This director, based on all the films he has worked on, seems to love making modern war era films. "United 93" was a patriotic film, without too many distorted messages. "United 93" was easy to watch and understand why that film felt needed to be made. "Green Zone" on the other hand, played directly to the hands of America's liberal society. Big bad fascist Republican run war programs vs. the peaceful, go green Democrats.

America should know by now everything wrong with the world can all be traced to the Republican party, and if not, be enlightened... or rather... obscure, misled, delude, confuse, confound, bewilder the truths with beautiful lies. You slap on an American flag on the shoulder of a soldier, and let him fight for the Democratic flag of the U.S. and all is well.

This film has no idea how dumb it is. Even the liberal society knows where to throw this film. If there is a person who finds the film's content of any interest, they must be blind, deaf, and have no taste for film.

The film has no point, perhaps it would have been better fitting to have been directed by Michael Moore and be set on the shelf with other lame documentaries. This movie makes truly good war films look that much better. The film has no moment of wit, or surprise. The film feels like everyone behind the camera fell asleep and left the camera rolling as unguided actors do nothing.

If at all possible, you will want to skip this film, for sure.

"Green Zone"

4 / 10

Review: David Fincher's "The Social Network" (2010)

David Fincher, the man behind the camera, was also behind the camera for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", "Zodiac", "Fight Club", and "Seven". Fincher has talent, for sure. Fincher owns a certain style of filming as well, one which is dark. Dark is the perfect word to describe his style, but feels weird leaving it at just that, but I have to stick to what feels right.

"The Social Network" was absent the darkness found in just about all the rest of Fincher's films. The film is about the world's most popular internet network, Facebook. How the company was founded isn't nearly as interesting as who it was founded by. Jesse Eisenberg elevated himself in this film. He made Mark Zuckerberg one of the most interesting human being on the planet.

The whole cast of the film really surprised me, Justin Timberlake being the biggest surprise of the film for me. Timberlake worked his way to becoming a force on the screen in this film.

The film was yet another film, well executed, well performed. The timing of the film couldn't have been better, as the relevance of the content is at its peak, and even from a business perspective, had to have aided in its immediate and near future successes.

The dialog in the film was amazing, so much wit in every word. The soundtrack, cinematography, just about everything in the film works together to create a great run at 'Best Picture'. If you see the film, you will be sad when it ends.

"The Social Network"

9 / 10

Review: James Gray's "Two Lovers" (2008)

James Gray doesn't have much in terms of films in his filmography. Previous to this film, he helmed "We Own the Night" also staring Joaquin Phoenix, was really a bomb and a half. The one thing that can be pulled from that project was Joaquin, and James did pull him into his next project. If James Gray did anything right, if he saw or learned anything in his film career leading to this point, it was to hang onto the golden nugget named Joaquin.

Joaquin Phoenix just may have played one of my favorite character studies in "Two Lovers". I fell for the character at every turn, by the force of great acting. I feel like I abuse terms like "one of the greatest" in terms of actors, but truly, Joaquin has a range of talent that very few, perhaps a number in the single digits, possess.

Joaquin Phoenix in this role was successful in everything it tried to be. In my immediate memory, there is no actor which can bring the amount of sorrow, true grief to the big screen like he can. No tear is more real than his. If I had a say in the path of an undergraduate actor, I would emphasize studying Mr. Phoenix's work. I believe if one could possibly observe and take from Joaquin at all, they could be great.

This role alone shot Joaquin into the sky for me. Before this role, there was the one great performance in "Gladiator", where he carried the only real drama of the whole film. Then there was "Signs", roles like this are often misused, but great actors are capable of making great things out of not so great roles, as did he in "Signs". After "Signs" was questionably his best role to date, "Walk the Line". He played Johnny Cash, a person I didn't really know much about, and learned the first few bites in this portrayal. When I say the film, I had nothing to compare it to, nothing to judge it's accuracy, but all I saw was something worth watching.

"Two Lovers" is easily Joaquin's best performance to date. If for no other reason to see the film, you should see it for the performance. The story is one of those that can go either way in Hollywood, depending on who's eye is capturing or performing it. In this case, it just happened to fall in the right hands. This story could not have been portrayed any better by the performances in the film. The cinematography, every shot, was done so well, it made me interested every moment of the film.

I was never very interested in Gwyneth Paltrow, but in this role, I wouldn't mind seeing her in roles calling for similar drama.

This movie should be seen by performance lovers. If you want a great story, its not here, but you do get however a very well executed story. I would love to hear someone's quarrels with this film, because I would engage and argue. We all have preferences, and that is really the only possibility of a hinderer in the film. Other than that, one thing I don't like to see, is that a single actor actually carries the whole success of the film. If you remove Joaquin, you get a very average, at best film. But, as the film is, it is a great execution.

"Two Lovers"

8 / 10

Review: Ben Affleck's "The Town" (2010)

Ben Affleck is turning out to be quite an amazing director. I think amazing is the right word because judging from his acting ability, it wouldn't seem like that greatness was within. That felt like punching someone in the face and then handing them a band-aid, but its the truth.

Big Ben started strong in his directorial debut in "Gone Baby Gone". He made the Boston culture interesting then, and kept the interest up in "The Town". Both of his films happen to have great performances wrapped around interesting stories, but most of all, it is the execution of the film as a whole which leaves the biggest impact.

Ben is able to peer through a lens and see good things, which is becoming more and more rare as more and more blind men take the seat of director.

The pace of the film is steady all the way through, steady on its fully developing into fully developed characters, which flows perfectly with the pace of the story. Everything peaks exactly when it needs to. Affleck still showed which brother he was in a few scenes, and even in the ending a bit, but still, Ben is on the right path in directing.

Every bullet shot in the film felt like some of the most real action sequences in all film. Every echo was perfect, every trace was stellar, every hole was just right, and every drop of blood couldn't have been better. There are very few successful bank robbing films, or even bank robbing scenes, but this one could possibly contend for the genre's top spot.

I believe people will begin making a harder push for Ben behind the camera than in front. But in this outing, it appeared that he had some ability for both. He blends the right amount of humor with drama, so we don't feel like we don't or can't believe it, and gives us characters with enough personality traits to draw similarities and distinctions from ourselves as we make connections.

At the pace Ben is moving, perhaps in 10 or so years we could be chanting his name like we currently do for Mr. Chris Nolan? I don't think it would be hard to envision another handful of successful outings for Affleck, and that is all that is needed to be considered a more than good director.

"The Town"

8 / 10

Review: David O. Russell's "The Fighter (2010)

David O. Russell... helming "The Fighter" after really only 3 accomplishments, which the term accomplishment could be up for debate here. He put together "Flirting With Disaster" (1996), "Three Kings" (1999), and "I Heart Huckabees" (2004). Based on those films, I wouldn't be so sure this project would end up in the best of hands.

"The Fighter" start off strong. The film is so lucky to have had Christian Bale attached to it, and I feel that should be the first emphasis. The story really was an automatic victory as it was based on a true story with interesting characters with an interesting idea. I think based on everything I saw, in hindsight, when I think about what the director had, I think he could have and should have accomplished much more than he did in this piece. I think without Christian Bale, the flaws of his directing would be much more visible.

When a scene was funny, it turned hilarious, then it seemed like the director knew he had something, and went back to it a few times. At times, it felt like I was listening to a stand-up comedian, a good one, and then after a great joke, he starts it all over again thinking he might get the same applause. He rode every success out till it couldn't be ridden anymore.

Every scene inside a boxing ring was mediocre, made for television quality stuff. The slow motion, scene cutting was lame. Sprinkle some bad music in on it and you have a nice steaming pile. It is too bad Christian Bale couldn't get into the ring and fight, because it would have been more interesting... after all, he was the most interesting person in the whole film, by far. The side characters, or extras, were good enough. As for Marky Mark, he was exactly what I expected, he was Marky Mark. He is the absolute epitome of mediocrity in Hollywood. Mark Wahlberg so far is incapable of carrying a film on his own. He should hang onto whoever it is he knows in Hollywood, because the roles he gets are far beyond his abilities. When Marky Mark turns from losing the fight, to winning the fight, it is the most awkward moment in the whole film... Boxing movies need to realize what each great sports films accomplished and why before they dig into making another random sport flick.

Overall the problems in the film include the score, cinematography, and just plain average acting from the majority of the cast. Everything good about the film was every scene which had Christian Bale's face in the shot. Christian Bale just keeps proving how much ability he has in his closet, with too vast a range to contain. Bale proves he is among Hollywood's elite.

If just to see Christian Bale's performance, see this film. You should be entertained in watching this film. I think Bale should be nominated for 'Best Supporting Actor' and the film should be nominated for 'Best Comedy/Musical'.

Amy Adams does have my interest now. I am bad with recognizing actresses, but I dug back into her filmography and noticed she impressed me in "Sunshine Cleaning", "Julie & Julia", "Doubt", and "Catch Me If You Can"... Now I will try and remember her.

"The Fighter"

6.5 / 10

Review: Oliver Stone's "Born on the Fourth of July" (1989)

Oliver Stone... where oh where and why oh why? I think back on Stone's work, and I remember "Platoon" and "Wall Street". But so much of Oliver Stone's work is so bad. I haven't had the pleasure of diving head first in experiencing the brunt of his work, but I have plenty to chew on for now.

"Natural Born Killers", "Any Given Sunday", "Alexander", and "World Trade Center" are just some of the piles this guy pulls out from his pants. Some of his films feel extremely passionate, and very thought out... but how much can someone think about meaninglessness? It feels like he gets a concept, a word or phrase even, and then barricades himself in a closet to dwell on it. Then he emerges to deliver the worst examples of his thoughts as he can. He says so little in the films that fall short, its a wonder how his brain operates.

In "Born on the Fourth of July", he gives us one of the few good films of his career. The movie is good, but I think most of the credit goes to Tom Cruise in this one. This film reminded me why Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise, the great distances he can go as an actor really separates himself from the competition. I think there are only a handful of actors in which can be relied on carrying a film, and Cruise is definitely one of them. His performance is enough for me to try pushing this film on others, but the story is a glimpse of a few interesting things that at least I or my generation may not think about.

The film will make you sad, it will make you laugh, and it will surely please you. How much you will be pleased depends on the interest of the content to the viewer.

"Born on the Fourth of July"

7 / 10

Review: Breck Eisner's "The Crazies" (2010)

Breck Eisner doesn't have a very long list of accomplishments in film. He has directed "Sahara", staring Matthew McConaughey, and is now working on a remake of a very popular creature feature called the "Creature From the Black Lagoon". Hopefully the remake is at least mediocre, because the original, this time, wasn't worth breathing on unless you were taking a class on how easy it can be to make such a film.

Eisner took on the task, before his current remake, to remake another creature film, "The Crazies". This film, tells a new tale of zombies, but doesn't take long before this tale becomes extremely unbearable. As hard as it was to finish, I did finish it.

A zombie film if taken serious should at least try to scare the viewer. This film really just tried playing with the style of scaring that comes from jumping out of a closet at someone around midnight. Really boring, and very uncreative. The sound, effects and music, were terrible. This is just another addition to the ever long genre of zombie failures. So few understand how a good zombie film is made, and I am even casting doubt on the godfather of zombies himself Mr. Romero. Romero hasn't done anything new or inventive since... "Night of the Living Dead".

This film follows a bunch of characters you couldn't care less about, as they do just about everything you wouldn't do or believe someone would do. The story is simple, there are zombies, and everyone should run. That concept for a story is pretty ideal for a zombie film, too bad its full of idiotic filler.

Timothy Olyphant is working at my patience. if he keeps up the trend of films he chooses, I will black list him forever. A good actor can still prove impressive amongst filthy story or even filthier staffing, and Olyphant keeps revealing his value in cents.

"The Crazies"

4 / 10

Review: Joseph Kosinski's "Tron Legacy" (2010)

Joseph Kosinski makes his directorial debut in the sequel of one of the most popular science fiction films of all time, "Tron Legacy". Disney couldn't have pumped up this film any more than it has, bus after bus at Comic-Con 2010, including their own extended panel in Hall H, all the way to special music events at Disneyland. Kosinski might have his name out in Hollywood now, but in time, we will better see in what light he comes out in. For now, "Tron Legacy" appears to have fallen short of just about every goal it seems to have set out after.

When I left the theater, I was already doing the math in my mind for a review rating, debating a 6 or 6.5 out of 10. The whole experience felt a little like going to a theme park, waiting to board your favorite ride, even willing to wait upwards to an hour in line! When you board the ride, your excitement is at its peak, and off you go... then before you know it, its over and perhaps you wonder if the ticket to the park, the drive out, and everything in between was worth it. I left the theater, pondering the idea, and yes, the ride was worth it. You seek roller coasters for one reason, the thrill of the corkscrews, barrel rolls, and drops, even though they all last 15 seconds. This film took you on a ride you have never been on, opens your mind to things you may have never thought about, and packed enough action into 2 hours to satisfy an entire annual need for adrenaline.

The graphics were everything they said they were, amazing. Having said that, in dealing with graphics, there is rarely a full execution in which finds perfection. The flaw in this one were the computer generated Jeff Bridges. After awhile, you get used to it, but I think they may have been too satisfied with their work with the amount of closeups they shot. Everything else was really stellar. The whole world in which they created, and everything in it, was amazingly satisfying. I think notes can and will be taken from this outing, and will be applied in films to come, now that we know how well all they did went.

It is a bummer though, how the story couldn't find it's was to reaching half the level of the graphics. There were a lot of problems with the story. First off, the character development slips and slides around, making the sequel stand on shaky legs. Watching the sequel, you wouldn't understand why it was called "Tron". I don't have this problem with other great fantasies, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, even Harry Potter...

I think the film should have been stretched a bit more, perhaps made into a 3 hour or close, film. 2 hours and 5 minutes wasn't long enough to tell the complete story the way they went about it. The pace was pretty steady for the most part, but huge holes were left. Things that were introduced were given seconds to explain. In fantasy, exploration of things is really important to me. When I am told Middle Earth is anything at all, I want to see it, not hear it, and because they show me everything, I believe and love it. I don't want to hear a few words to explain major events or major elements of the story.

In the end, the story could have been very good if executed well. I won't elaborate very much due to spoilers. But the story in the end is much more vast than it presents itself in the beginning. There aren't very many twists, or unforeseen moments, but overall what good can be found in the story, however bad it was executed is still seen with distorted vision. The concepts of "father" Flynn, "son" Flynn, and the perfect Iso is still good enough.

I sure hope another "Tron" film shows up, I have certain needs that need filling.

Jeff Bridges... can't say enough about him, but in this film his screen presence was great and played his role as father very interestingly. I might be in a minority group for saying it, but I was also a fan of the soundtrack used, at least everything I can remember hearing.

Oh, and a quick shout out to Comic-Con 2010, or regarding it rather... every crowd cheering sound clip in the film was recorded in Hall H with the 5,000 people participating in the cheering. It was fun thinking about that during the film.

"Tron Legacy"

6.5 / 10

Review: Roman Polanski's "Frantic" (1988)

Polanski does have a unique way of making film. "Frantic", if given to most modern directors would produce a straight to television version of the story. With the help of Harrison Ford, in the days it seemed he cared about his roles, gives us a dramatic thrill ride.

The film won't wow you. There will be no glitter, not amazing moments throughout the film, but made in 1988, it fits within that time's best drama's. In 1988 we received "Rain Man", nothing spectacular, but a good drama. "Born on the Fourth of July" in 1989 gave a bit more, but still in the same punch bowl. Moving into 1990 we received "Ghost" and "Dances with Wolves" 2 more with the same punch. None of these films are great, but they all have something, some considerable recognition worth putting together.

"Frantic" will not provide award winning anything, but it is a fun ride worth taking if the chance ever comes. Harrison Ford doesn't have a long list of quality films, so if Ford is of interest, it is worth checking out. As for Polanski, he has done better... this one falls in the mediocre section of all the director's work.

"Frantic"

7 / 10

Review: Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige" (2006)

Christopher Nolan, one of Hollywood's current greats, brought along Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, and David Bowie to bring us into a world of magicians. Nolan really did a solid job in making this film. Everything looks good, each frame is shot with a special awareness and the sets are great.

The cast performs every line and scene exactly the way it should have been. As good as the cast and Nolan's eye may be, there are still flaws to be found. The story really feels like its doing more than it is, in a world of mystery and magic, there weren't many moments of great surprise. In this film, with so much emphasis on a concept that believes nothing is as it seems, pretty much is the opposite. Every single thing in the film was exactly as it seemed, and I would have preferred the director rip off the cover to what was really underneath, which he may have done... but it wasn't a surprise. Feels like when my wife cooks dinner, smells good, smells like spaghetti, and the longer it takes her to bring it to me, the hungrier I get. When it finally arrives, it arrives in a microwavable paper tray in which was pulled from the freezer. I just wish I knew before the anticipation of something great that all I was going to get was something less.

Now, having attempted to rip the story in half with some displeasure, the film carries itself to the end just fine. The ending leaves us with some good thoughts as well, but in too simple a way. It seems hard now to convince someone I enjoyed the movie, I did, very much, but the film left a void in which greater films don't leave. When a void is left, it better leave only a question.

Without a doubt, everyone should be entertained by the film, just not overly wowed. Still, Nolan presented many things in the film in which forced interest out of things that probably wouldn't have been so. Not Nolan's finest, but he is working up, up, and up.

"The Prestige"

7 / 10

Review: The Most Magical Series of All Time... Harry Potter

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The title reminded and still reminds me of every lame knock off child's film. Once upon a time there was "Narnia", and then there was "The Golden Compass". I originally saw the first Harry Potter almost 10 years ago when it was first released. I am a lover of fantasy, particularly the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars series. When I saw "The Sorcerer's Stone", I was upset, upset at the age group it was trying to solely appeal to. I enjoy so many things about other fantasy films, and none of them have anything to do with fantasies about being dumb boring English kids who have spells to include brushing their teeth. I hated all the colors, I hated the lack of character development throughout all the characters. They give you barely what you need, but don't bother exploring them much, at least outside of their current childish escapades. Everything in this film feels so Fisher Price. I have been informed that perhaps watching this film in black and white may help my brain get over the poor use of colors. Words from that advisor mentions a feel of horror when entering the school for the first time, and that is exactly what I want. In a world of magic, I don't like everyone the way they are, it doesn't feel believable.

The child actors in the first film really show that youth in ability. The adults in the film create an inconsistency in all the performances. Everything has been waxed to perfection, buffed and polish. I feel like the success of this first film was really attributed to being the first of its kind, in a way that "Avatar" was as well. It is the only logical thing I can think of.

"The Sorcerer's Stone" (2001)

5.5 / 10

"The Chamber of Secrets". I was being told throughout the film that the chamber itself was this thing everyone was terrified about, I begin to wonder if the English and American words for 'terrified' are the same. They should have communicated scary or maybe just mysterious, not terrifying.

The introduction of the house elf "Dobby" was a bit more interesting. Still, Dobby didn't carry the film into victory, nor did anything else. We still got an overdose of the same styles the first film gave to us. I feel like they succeeded in finding a director who can match the ages groups of the actors and their target audience, but not me. The series at this point feels like there was a lacking education in the writing, or even lacking vision. Good ideas were made clear via the writer, but so many other movies present good ideas. The hover board in "Back to the Future" being one example. I feel like a million minute ideas, the size and importance of the hover board were presented in Harry Potter, and I just don't care.

One of my biggest hatreds for the series was quidditch. Watching people try and convince me of the importance of flying on broomsticks was saddening, even more saddening when those broomsticks make second-long appearances outside of the Potter sport. If Star Wars told me there were such things as light-sabers, and showed them to me for mere seconds per film in inopportune moments, Star Wars might not have done so well. But using these ideas, teamed with a good story, with good timing, adds to the whole project.

The graphics look a tiny bit better in this film than the first, and maybe more magic, but its just all empty... like watching a version of Lord of the Rings without the ring... Harry Potter still his ring.

"Chamber of Secrets" (2002)

5.5 / 10

Now the franchise has made an attempt to better itself in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" by removing the playful Fisher Price director with someone who presents a little more vision. I won't name anyone yet because no one knows, and no one cares.

Harry Potter has become a bit of a better character in this installment. A bit more aged, is becoming slowly but surely more relevant for what the story wants us to believe is either happening or going to happen. The film really kicks off with the introduction of the Dementors. Now, having had a near death experience with them, Harry finds they have then been invited to their school. Makes sense. I feel like Harry Potter is supposed to be important, the most important person in the world, and even though the leaders know about that, they don't seem to care much. If I was told salvation of the world would come through Harry Potter, I would feel the need to lend him protection until that day came, not let him do as he wills.

The acting in the film becomes a bit better in this than the first 2, but still hard for my eyes and ears to not feel bothered. My biggest problem with the series is its story, its story is just far more empty than the other great fantasy films. I just never feel like I care about anything that is happening. There are some fun moments, and I can sit through this film fine, but I can sit through plenty of flops.

The colors are better in this film, taking itself a bit more serious, which does earn it a better point score than its predecessors.

"The Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004)

6 / 10

I need to re-watch "The Goblet of Fire" before I create a review for it. It is the one I have seen the fewest times, and been the longest time since seeing it. I will update the blog when I see it with its own post.

Moving on down to "The Order of the Phoenix" we have one of the better moments of fantasy in all of film. This film gave us a bite of what even the Lord of the Rings series didn't, a real wizard vs. wizard fight with explosions of magic.

The film as a whole was more pleasing but still a little underdeveloped. It traded off some weaknesses for other weaknesses. The acting in this film is the beginning of something worth watching. The graphics and cinematography is also taken some steps up, but the impact of this film as a whole comes up short like the rest. Each movie doesn't feel capable of being on its own, like other great series, but become more and more dependent on the rest of the films to help carry it. Every movie seems to remind us that yet again nothing will actually be happening just yet.

"The Order of the Phoenix" (2007)

6.5 / 10

"The Half-Blood Prince" was a small step down from the previous, but still moving in a better, or more serious direction that the whole series should have been on. There is a glimpse of some real drama in this one, as opposed to the previous ones, and again, more magic to be found in this than most. However good certain things may or may not have been in the film, this film could have very easily have been cut into a great 1 hour film, instead we get a stretched 2 and a 1/2 hour pile of indigestible food.

I still feel like there is an attempt at trying to please all audiences, and it doesn't work well. I actually think many kids would find it more difficult now in this film to enjoy it as they can the earlier ones. Meanwhile, adults, confused at the inconsistency of the series, and just bored of the stretched out story (if one can be found) in this film.

"The Half-Blood Prince" (2009)

6 / 10

The most recent of the Potter series, "The Deathly Hallows: Part 1", finally takes off with the wings I have always been waiting for from this series. If the whole series was as exciting as this installment, and as well executed as this installment, then perhaps we could be taking about a great trifecta in fantasy, with debatable positions as for which is better. It is the first time I had been upset at the film actually coming to an end.

The acting was solid, the story actually had a point and teamed it up with successful and inventive suspense nowhere in the previous films. I think Harry Potter will deserve a good remake come a handful of years, one with a bit of consistency. The magic in the film could have been better, but to say that is really me being a nitpick. I think the world of Harry Potter grew, and we got to do more exploring, more connecting with the characters than ever before. When a character is cold in this film, we are cold, when a character feels anything at all, we also feel it. First well made, overall, film of the series.

"The Deathly Hallows: Part 2"

8 / 10

Even though I harshly criticize the series, it is still just about all we have in terms of magic in fantasy, which is crowned... The most magical series of all time.

Review: Michael Mann's "Public Enemies" (2009)

Michael Mann was handed an interesting script, or at least an interesting idea. Then Mann chased down Johnny Depp and Christian Bale to play the lead roles. Now mind you Mann is the guy who brought us "Thief" in 1981, which isn't a great movie, but just a notch below that. Mann also gave us "Last of the Mohicans" in 1992, then "Heat" in 1995, and "The Aviator" and "Collateral" in 2004. So, with this in mind, how could this film have taken a turn in the wrong direction? I'll tell you why, Mann's brain is missing. Mann, since filming "Collateral" in 2004, brought us 3 terrible flops. Giving us "Miami Vice", "The Kingdom", and "Hancock". Hollywood directors seem to take a nose dive at some aged point in their lives, and 2004 started Mann's downward spiral.

In so many of Mann's films, he is able to attract talent, which is a third of the real requirement for a solid film. The story and directing ability would make up the rest. So, its my opinion that somewhere in these 3 elements, there were major flaws.

Johnny Depp gave one of his most mediocre performances of his career. He put on a cement face, never changed it once, read his lines, and went home. Who would have thought a great character actor wouldn't bring more than mediocrity to the table? Well, then we have Christian Bale. Bale didn't really have too much to work with, he played his part. If Bale were to exhaust any additional talents for this film, he would have appeared to be an over-actor. Bale's screen time didn't feel like very much either, felt like a waste of talent. Everyone else in the film did their part, but not many people gave more than mediocre performances.

The story in "Public Enemies" could have been made good. It has so many of the right elements to be exciting already, bank robbers, guns, a good era, and guns. The guns in the movie were good, everything felt real about them, unlike so many other Shmollywood films. The era presented, the 1930's, was done pretty well. I don't think we explored enough of the life in the 1930's to really feel the legitimacy of it all, but it at least tricks you for 2 hours. The bank robbing in the film... just terrible. This is supposed to be one of the most notorious bank robbers of all time, and I feel like he may have robbed a single bank in his criminal career. Nothing told me John Dillinger (Depp) was a bigger mastermind than a New York pickpocket.

Michael freaking Mann, what he needs to do is re-prioritize what he needs to do in making a film. He seems like a perfectionist in the way he shoots every shot, but you can't just use good techniques to film a garbage can and make us think it doesn't smell. He shoots what feels like should be a 5 hour film, in what feels like 10 minutes. Scenes and times skip around so fast, we are little informed. Go back to the chalkboard.

"Public Enemies"

6 / 10

Review: Duncan Jones' "Moon" (2008)

The film is great. Sam Rockwell plays multiple roles in the film, with each one providing a 'Best Actor' performance. Rockwell really sells everything he has, and makes me wonder what he will be working on from now on. I don't believe in flawless anything when it comes to human beings, so I don't think flawless would be the word to describe his performance, but whatever comes next... that was Sam Rockwell in "Moon".

Kevin Spacey lends his voice for a robotic character in the film. His voice is perfectly bland for the role. I would like to believe Spacey was perfect for this role as well, but it is just a voice.

The film's story was unique yet simple. I was originally concerned at a resemblance between "Moon" and "2001 A Space Odyssey" but in the end they were vastly different. 2001 was grander in its ideas, but "Moon" was in my opinion, better executed and better performed. All these features are key elements to great films, and each has higher and lower levels of each.

Hollywood is revealing flaw after flaw in its award shows. The major award shows denied "Moon" on all the nominations. If I had a say, it would have been nominated for 'Best Picture', but more importantly 'Best Actor'. Hollywood is an hourglass running out of sand, they need to step it up.

The set design and cinematography were just amazing. Everything felt so real, so raw, so interesting. I don't think I experienced the same realness, raw feelings, or interest in the Star Wars prequels. This film is truly a great science fiction film, perhaps one of the only more modern science fictions out there.

If you haven't seen this film, really evaluate the films you watch before seeing this, because you are probably wasting your time on lesser films. Must see.

"Moon"

8.5 / 10

Review: The Pentilogy of "The Karate Kid"...

"The Karate Kid" was absolutely a classic, whether a fine film or note, it is nostalgic. There are very distinct flaws in the first film which really starts to fester. The first film had a unique story, simple, but unique. The movie is one of the best films about overcoming an adversary I had ever seen growing up. The rest of the films that tried to play with the same plots really bombed.

The cast in the main body of the series is Ralph Macchio and Noriyuki 'Pat' Morita. 'Pat' Morita portrayed one of the most iconic figures in film history in Mr. Miyagi. The portrayal, or demanded performance wasn't astounding by any feat but it did better than I think anyone could have ever asked for. On the other side of the cast, Ralph Macchio was the single biggest flaw. He constantly overacts in every scene, like each frame decides the future of his career. In the end, it did, but not benefiting it.

I think one of the most unique facts surrounding the Karate Kid series is that the director of "Rocky", John G. Avildsen, helmed the first 3 Karate Kid movies. "Rocky" is or should be in every living breathing creature's top 10 list of greatest films of all time. Then came, what feels like a cash flow.

The first Karate Kid really does stand alone in the series. I feel like the original Karate Kid is Kellogs Corn Flakes, and the second Karate kid isn't for sale in the country... perhaps its Okinawa Flakes. The third film comes back into the local market, but its store brand, and organic.

I go against the trend in caring more for the third than the second, but thats preferring a Ford Pinto vs. the Yugo.

The stories in the second and third films take a serious nose dive, and I cannot imagine the director not being taken over by alcoholism during and after filming. It seemed the actors weren't given a script but told limited facts about what was expected and really winged it, including the dialog.

Moving on, we hit the worst road block in the series, "The NEXT Karate Kid". If you've got the time, don't. Take the money you would spend on a rental or purchase, and just light it on fire.

Now... the most recent of the series, was released this year. The film stars the son of Will Smith, Jaden Smith. Jaden shows us a bit of what is to come in this film. His screen presence is already elevated, and with the help of Jackie Chan, provide a solid film. I don't think the film has succeeded more than average expectations but it did prove entertaining. Jackie Chan isn't known for his acting ability, but he reveals a sign of it's existence in the film. Chan still provides with Chan-like energy in his choreography while leaving out the Chan hour of comedy.

The film didn't finish well, in fact the ending was the most sour portion of the film. If the ending had delivered, I think it could have projected the film to eye level or higher than the original Karate Kid. At the end of the day, it was a remake, a remake to an already successful and still relevant film, expectations are higher for remakes, and this remade story wasn't presented well enough to justify itself.

"The Karate Kid"

7 / 10

"The Karate Kid II"

3.5 / 10

"Karate Kid III"

4.5 / 10

"Karate Kid" (2010)

6.5 / 10

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

"The Next Karate Kid"

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

Review: Francis Ford Coppola's "The Rainmaker" (1997)

Coppola, one of the greatest directors of all time, solely for bringing us "The Godfather", leaves most of his marks with lacking consistency. To make what many people would consider the greatest film or trilogy ever made and then have so much inconsistent films really makes me wonder.

Coppola is responsible for bringing us "Apocalypse Now", one of the greatest war movie of all time. "The Godfather", the greatest real gangster movie of all time, "The Conversation", the greatest mystery, suspense, espionage film I can conjure... and then be the maker of mediocracy in "The Outsiders", "Bram Stroker's Dracula", and so many other films no one will have ever heard of just creates curiosity. Even the films he decided to produce, they have a large range of goodness.

The cast in "The Rainmaker" is led by Matt Damon and Danny DeVito. The other actors in the movie would make it more appealing by adding their names to the cover, but really don't add to what we see on the screen. Matt Damon is one of the best actors Hollywood has ever seen who can be rock solid and consistent in portraying a mediocre character in a mediocre way. I don;t want to say more than that about him, if you have seen anything staring Damon, you have seen his performance in everything (minus "Good Will Hunting"). Danny DeVito could be summed up in the exact same words, minus Good Will, and enter "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest".

This movie is your average, very average 90's drama. You get the big bad business man who takes advantage of the little innocent people and just before the big guy can win, in comes the hero to save the day... the end. Coppola needs to stay away from Grisham novels, and stick to what has worked the best for him... or just call it quits and we can soak up the greats.

"The Rainmaker"

6 / 10

Review: Kathryn Bigelow's "Point Break" (1991)

Are there any other surfer flicks than this? I don't immediately recall any films in which take itself serious with surfing as a theme except this one. How many bank robbery films exist? Plenty, but how many good ones? "Dog Day Afternoon" is a solid bank robbery film, and "The Town" was even better. "Heat" was an alright job as well, but "Point Break" gives a unique perspective on how and why a bank can be robbed.

The performances in the film were actually impressive for a early 90's action film in which the actors don't have a trend of greatness in their filmography. So because of that, I am led to believe the director Kathryn Bigelow somehow made whatever happened happen.

Keanu Reeves played his role I think as good as it could have been. He crossed all his "T's" and dotted all his "I's". Outside of "The Matrix" I think this could be his most interesting role for me.

Patrick Swayze, the actor who danced and ghosted his way into the eyes of nearly every women by the 90's played a rugged role only to be enjoyed by men. His character's culture, along with all his mates were the best, most realistic group of surfers I have ever seen on the screen. I don't have a single idea about what a surfing culture would look like in reality, but I felt if one existed, it would look like this, at least during the era of MTV.

Gary Busey shows up enough to give his standard Busey presence, which never really excites you too much, but does please often enough. Don't go looking for Busey to astonish you in anything, after all he plays the same guy in almost everything hes in.

The film isn't epic, it isn't a great movie, but it is solid and very enjoyable to watch over and over. The film should deliver pleasure to anyone who likes an action-drama.

"Point Break"

7.5 / 10

Review: Lone Scherfig's "An Education" (2009)

Lone Scherfig, a no name director with few films under his belt manages to put together a seemingly interesting piece. The cast of the film was pretty unique. I had never really experienced or noticed these individuals before this film, and now have a greater respect for their abilities to carry a scene.

However, I think the story is in the end meaningless. There is no point to the film at the very end. I feel that I received a "school is cool" message, which isn't something I go to the theater for. I want something more profound, but if profound isn't in the story, just entertain me. I felt like the film was trying to convince me of certain importances in life which I disagree with in a great way.

I do want to mention by name the stars, in Peter Sarsgaard and Carey Mulligan, portrayed very interesting characters for the majority of the film. I don't think the flaws of the film hinge too much on the success or failure of director Lone Scherfig, but I think he had a part to play in some of the flaws. For the brunt of the blame, I deliver straight to anyone who held a pen or pencil in regards to the story.

The story isn't going to be as relevant to the current, at least American, generation. The 'stay in school' theme is done now, it isn't the ultimate 'good' here anymore and that absence removes relevance when it tries to carry that theme to the end as the lesson. Words that come to mind regarding this film include: unnecessary, empty, irreverent, boring, and impressive. Impressive is only attributed to the performances.

"An Education"

6.5 / 10

Review: Gary Sinise's "Of Mice and Men" (1992)

Gary Sinise is responsible for just 1 directed film, "Of Mice and Men".

Hollywood portraying mentally disabled individuals is a hard task, and rarely done well. John Malkovich would definitely have the ability to do the task, but so does Sean Penn in "I Am Sam", Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man", Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump", Leonardo DiCaprio in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", the whole cast in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and my favorite Billy Bob Thorton in "Sling Blade". These characters were overall portrayed well, but under certain direction, maybe not followed up with good content.

I think this film falls into the category of 'could have been'. I believe it could have been good or better under different direction. This film helps me understand a bit more that not anyone in Hollywood who 'can', should. Sinise does a decent job, perhaps a little better, in his acting role here, but the film focuses too much on things it shouldn't be, at least in the way it was focused on. You really need an artistic eye as a director, to capture things and try to communicate them to the audience correctly. It felt more in this film like Sinise saw some stuff he liked and just rolled film. The film feels like a top notch made for television movie.

I had never been exposed to this story before until I watched this film, and I really felt like the writer probably had more, and better ideas about what they wanted than was given to me visually. Nothing felt raw, but like being in the colorful world of "The Wizard of Oz", everything was too perfect. Perhaps I will adventure over to the older film, and from what I hear its unfortunate I dislike to read because the book is said to be the best.

"Of Mice and Men"

6.5 / 10

Review: Robert D. Siegel's "Big Fan" (2009)

Robert D. Siegel has helmed only one film, "Big Fan". The film's cast includes Patton Oswalt, Kevin Corrigan, and Michael Rapaport. These 3 actors provided some of the most real or raw characters I have ever seen on the screen. Particularly in Patton Oswalt, who led the film with great presence, made a story of moderate interest into something way more.

This was one of the best character studies I have ever seen. The film does however, have some big flaws. The acting of some of the characters in the film are a bit cheap and unrealistic. The language and content is bearable for the sake of the story, and in the end is forgivable. The film is really driven on the performance of Oswalt, Corrigan, and Rapaport, and they really lift the film into perhaps the 'best of the year' discussion. Some will come to the film with more understanding of the characters as it is a story that doesn't explain a lot about it's passionate character's passions. If even just to watch a good performance and character study, watch the film. People can say what they want about the story, whether it was their preference or not, it was executed well.

The film looks great, sounds great, and smells great... it must be great. Surely one of my favorite films of 2009.

The film has a great sense of humor, but can make you feel awkward because of what is being humorous. This is a story about a loser and his addiction, who in the end pleases himself and the audience.

"Big Fan"

8.5 / 10

Exploring the "Best Picture" of 2005...

In 2005, the 'Best Picture' award went to "Crash". I recently ate from that dish and liked it more than previously. I have gone back and forth in my mind, considering who should have won that year. I declined interest and willingness to view one of the nominated films of 2005, "Brokeback Mountain", in which I hear the performances were stellar. I just find the film's content dissatisfying in my mind. I have yet to sit down and watch "Good Night, and Good Luck", so my final word for the 2005 'Best Picture' will be partial. The other films nominated in 2005 include "Capote" and "Munich".

"Capote" had a great performance by one of my favorite actors in Philip Seymour Hoffman. However, the story wasn't something I had a need for, and when I saw it, it wasn't something I cared for. It rode solely on the performance of Hoffman, and having just a great performance doesn't merit greatest film of the year.

"Capote"

7.5 / 10

Moving down to the last film nominated and seen by me, is "Munich". The film felt more like an Obama speech. Full of words and supposed meaning, but just didn't mean anything to me. It felt like a mess of shots which could be good, but somehow find ways not to be so good. The film feels produced by the liberals of America. The more exciting part of the film is in its opening, and the film just gets more and more boring from there. The performances were good, but again, just not about anything I could care about in the way it was portrayed. I think if anyone can do this type of film, it could be the creator of "Schindler's List" in Spielberg, but like the more recent works of Spielberg, his current works are tainting his legacy a bit. It is hard to find a solid, clean, one answer to a problem in a vague film with vague problems, and they try too hard to do that. I feel like an animated film starring 2 brick walls arguing via bubble dialog would be more interesting.

"Munich"

6.5 / 10

So, now, we move to the crowned champion in "Crash". The film, with many stars, was performed very well. I don't have a complaint for a single performance in the film, at the same time there are solid or better performances from every other person in the film. The story is a unique one, in just how a single person, or persons can affect others in very unique ways. I don't care tremendously for most of the situations the writer created for some of the drama but it does suffice. On another note, I always knew Matt Dillon was cheating us on everything he has ever been in before this, he has talent inside there somewhere... and I'll give the same nod to Brendan Fraser. The script feels a bit thick, or layered, which is good, but some moments feel a bit too forced, or convenient. Overall I like some of the questions asked in the film, or at least portions of some of the questions, more than that of the other 2 nominated films I have seen.

"Crash"

7.5 / 10

Other mentionable films of 2005 really don't have a tremendous argument for contention over "Crash", but perhaps some of the others, or at least some honor. "Sin City" brought a brand new unique look to the screen with some good things to look at. Star Wars Episode III and King Kong... which I feel fine in both's achievements. But then there is "A History of Violence" and "Walk the Line", which deserve some mentioning in talks of at least my own top 5 of the year.

Review: Jean-Jacques Annaud's "Seven Years in Tibet" (1997)

One thing I love doing in reviewing films now is adventuring into director's filmography. It allows me to better understand the director's goals and accomplishments. Jean-Jacques has previously directed "The Name of the Rose" starring Sean Connery and "The Bear", a no-dialog, nature adventure film. Post "Seven Years in Tibet" he directed "Enemy At The Gates" which was a mediocre at best, addition to the WWII genre, in which ended a streak only some would call 'impacting'.

What I learned from Jean-Jacques in this and the rest of his filmography... the word mediocrity.

This film had been on my list "to See" for some time, and it was among the more dreaded to see. Once I got about halfway into the film I began to gain more and more interest. Not nearly enough to put me on the edge of my seat, but more of a desire to finish something I started. I enjoyed it more than I thought, but that doesn't or shouldn't imply it excited me much.

Brad Pitt has a few moments of mediocrity, but the rest is just classic Pitt. Everyone else in the film followed his grade of mediocrity. The film does adventure off into places I have not really thought of, and in situations which have never entered my brain, but I do think there is a reason some of these things never entered. The movie feels like 3 hours of fast-forwarded film. Everything flies by, with moments you want to push play, but realize that was all the bite its going to give you.

I think the concept, the ideas inside this film were bigger than the film wishes it could have been. When I come across films like this, I wonder why Brad Pitt ever was.

I also am never convinced of any single character's nature in the film. Everything feels a bit fake, a bit divided from what I am used to seeing in the world. Characters are too... too much of... everything they are. I cannot think of a defense for any of the characters in the film and how they were written.

Perhaps I thought I was going to be able to push play, and in 5 minutes know if I was going to hit the power button and save 2+ hours... but it deceived me, every minute... till the end.

I think the one place just about anyone could seriously enjoy the film is in some way related to watching the film while waiting... waiting for your plane to land... waiting in the lobby of a dental office... because its either waiting homicidally bored or waiting suicidally bored.

"Seven Years in Tibet"

5.5 / 10