Review: The "Red Riding" Trilogy (2009)

The trilogy was written by Tony Grisoni, but directed by 3 different directors. Tony Grisoni started off his screenwriting career with "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", a film not well received by critics, but is living its days as a cult classic. He moved on to do some smaller hit and miss projects, then in 2009 released a popular, well received trio project, the "Red Riding" trilogy. Each is a full length film featuring characters who cycle in and out of each film, with each experiencing their own development. The films are set in Yorkshire, England, during a time of major corruption in the police department. The officers are all together unique, with their own selfish motives, and only some come to confront their darkness. Each film is very good, but altogether a great work.

"Red Riding: 1974" (2009)

The first of the film sets the tone for the series, starting off with a huge bang. The film is carried by a grand performance by Andrew Garfield (soon to be in the new Spider-Man reboot). The film is beautifully shot, each scene more interesting than the previous. The story is relentless, pursuing each character's darkness, moving at high rates of speed and as an audience member, you are waiting to see the crash. The film really has no comparison, it isn't like another movie or series. It is set in a time and place in which most Americans aren't familiar with, but incorporates the common police corruption identifiable by all.

Here you see the effects of corruption, on the small and big, the would be innocent and guilty. The story is compelling, you're emotions like a roller-coaster riding apart the track. This is noir, and a mystery that unravels deeper and deeper, then even deeper. There just aren't many good films based on police corruption worth watching, this one is definitely worth it.

It is a powerful film, and by the end, you will want to watch the next 2 immediately. It is a film that feels directed by David Fincher, from the dark sin in "Se7en" to the mystery thriller of "Zodiac". They are all filmed in the same style.

"Red Riding: 1874"

8.5 / 10

"Red Riding: 1980" (2009)

The second of the series is definitely and obviously the least of the three. I believe it is a key piece of the overall story, in showing the continual and more perverse world of the corrupt officers, but does take a step down.

The story is about "The Yorkshire Ripper" who preys on young women of a poor community. A detective arrives to investigate the crimes, and discovers many inconsistencies, then finds himself surrounded by pressure and corrupted officers.

The film is less compelling than the first, but still offers more than enough to hold it's own. The performance is steady and very good in quality, but there is a lacking greater performance where the first and third are strong. Still, I believe the film carries itself slowly but surely to the finish line, right into the great finish of the third installment.

"Red Riding: 1980"

7 / 10

"Red Riding: 1983" (2009)

The final chapter in the "Red Riding" trilogy hits closer to home than the rest. The third film hits on the more sensitive issues surrounding the more than decade long corruption. I make an attempt to harbor all spoilers, so the effects of the film is delivered fully to it's viewer.

An officer who is in all three films, is now in position to make key decisions. He can aid his fellow officers, who he has grown extensive relationships with, or he can dig up enough compassion to expose the truth no matter the cost. The final film brings the series together, giving much needed remedies to open wounds in the story. I admire the idea of 4 large stories being told, and taking 3 films to do it. I love the styles used, the performances, the films are standout great pieces of work.

"Red Riding: 1983"

8 / 10

For a serious fan of film, this series is a must see. Whether you want performance, a lesson in how to tell a story, or an example of great cinematography, you will enjoy this series.

The "Red Riding" Trilogy

9 / 10

Review: Walt Disney's "Pinocchio" (1940)

In the beginning Walt created Disney and Disney Animation. The animation was good, and hand drawn. The films had great story and art, as Walt was hovering over the projects. Then Walt said "Let there be Snow White", and there was Snow White. Walt saw that it was good and separated his from the rest, calling his "good" and the other's "bad". And there was distinction of quality in animation.

Here, is "Pinocchio", Walt Disney's second well-known full length animation. It is a story about a clock-maker and crafter Geppetto who desires a son, and makes a wooden puppet. Then a magical fairy brings the puppet to life, giving Geppetto his 'son'. Of course Pinocchio isn't a real boy, but he desires to be. He sets out to earn the right of becoming a real boy by proving his bravery, honesty, and unselfishness. Instead he becomes tempted and fooled around every corner, becoming a scared, lying, selfish 'boy'. But when his father Geppetto is taken by a beast, Pinocchio sets out to save him.

"Pinocchio" is one of the best, if not the best classic Disney animation, I have ever seen. The story reveals the wickedness and dependence of man, and then redemption. I saw the film as a child and remember how terrifying the film was, and maybe I only saw it one time for that reason. I wanted the funner more exciting movie, not the honest and gross one.

The film looks amazing, visually championing to any current animated project. The music chosen is amazing as most classic Disney films. The character of Pinocchio is simple, but the situations and characters around him are what amplifies his own character. From the monstrous whale to the creepy villains on Pleasure Island. And perhaps the darkness is even darker with each sitting of the film.

The idea that a child's film would impact such a variety of age groups is great, but the fact that a film as such would pock and prod at such serious implications is far better. You are gross, living in a gross environment, in need of saving. Bam. It is too bad most children's films now are so empty, appealing to adults in humor as it's perversity passes over the heads of the youthful viewer, missing a more powerful message.

This film is truly for all ages, and has lasted over 70 years. This is a must-see film. If you or your child have not seen this film, and you are considering a trip out to see "Shrek 8: The series will not die", you are a fool. Take a trip to the nearest retail store, buy the DVD and a box of popcorn, and watch the movie at home. You will have seen a superior film and own it for future viewing.

"Pinocchio"

9.5 / 10

Review: Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" (2011)

Nicolas Winding Refn, director of "Bronson", "Valhalla Rising", and also the "Pusher" trilogy just delivered perhaps the year's best film so far. A film which displayed a "Gone in 60 Seconds" type appearance in it's preview, couldn't be further from. This film revealed just how valuable it is to have a great performance. I have felt for a long time that a performance can carry a film with a bad story, but a great story cannot carry a film with a bad performance. Ryan Gosling is proving this fact over and over. The roles he decides to take are not going to launch him into DiCaprio type stardom, but he surely deserves nearly all the success for each film he played in. There hasn't quite been a 'big time' film for him, after starring in chick flicks and small independent projects.

In "Drive", Ryan Gosling has shown me that after each film, he is consistently getting better and better. He plays "Driver" and sometimes "Kid" in the film, subtly never giving up his name. The character is a well mannered, well groomed, hardworking stunt driver by day... and a well disciplined driver for hire by night. The Driver decides to fall in-love with a neighbor, who's husband gets out of jail, makes a couple bad decisions, and bam... the Driver finds himself invested in a situation that grows bigger and bigger, and one he may not be able to drive out of.

The film is a beautiful one. Each scene is well thought out, and consistent scene after scene, never giving me an 'out of place' feeling. The movie has many slow moments, but it is valuable time for the viewer to be the Driver... in thought. Each slow moment allows the viewer to think the thoughts of the character himself. The thoughts and feelings are obvious but each character reaction is a real time reaction allowing understanding to take place. The facial expressions of the actors in the film are good, but great from Ryan Gosling. He can seemingly read lines with his facial expressions. His dramatic moments and moments of suspense all come so naturally and also so surprising one thrill after the other.

This is an thrill ride for everyone. From people who don't normally do action flicks, to those who relish in them. When the action happens, it happens with perfection. Cinematography is remarkable. You could have a good idea about what could possibly take place in the next couple scenes, but simple camera angles, and lighting trickery meant all the difference.

The dialog is scarce and meaningful. The Driver doesn't employ or show any interest in small talk, instead decides to observe and be observed. The Driver doesn't share with the audience any kind of back story. We get no information about the character's history prior to the film's beginning. Everything we know about him, we see.

The score of the film fits everything the film did, event he pink font for the title and credits pleased me. The rest of the cast includes... Carey Mulligan (Jenny, "An Education"), Bryan Cranston (Walt, "Breaking Bad"), and Ron Perlman ("Hellboy"). They all accomplish the assumed goals, but none of them bite the heels of Ryan Gosling.

While Quentin Tarantino is successful with great raw action sequences, he also creates some of the best dialog in all the world of film. Nicolas Winding Refn isn't concerned with quotability. He simply places his interest in good film, which I intend on owning the day the DVD is released. This is a must-see film for everyone. So far the year's best. This is an action movie for film savvy intellectuals... not necessarily just for the fans who limit themselves to more recent flicks pumped out by Hollywood's new boyfriend Michael Bay.

"Drive"

9 / 10

Top Ten Best Comic-Book Films.

The List:

1. The Dark Knight - 9 /10

2. Batman Begins - 8 /10

3. Iron Man - 8 /10

4. The Iron Giant - 8 /10

5. Unbreakable - 8 /10

6. Superman - 7.5 /10

7. Captain America - 7.5 /10

8. The Incredible Hulk - 7.5 /10

9. X-Men: First Class - 7.5 /10

10. Batman - 7.5 /10

To see where I rank the rest...

The Batman series:

-Batman (1989) -- 7/10

-Batman Returns (1992) -- 5/10

-Batman Forever (1995) -- 3.5/10

-Batman & Robin (1997) -- 3/10

-Batman Begins (2005) -- 8/10

-The Dark Knight (2008) -- 9/10

The Superman series:

-Superman (1978) -- 7.5/10

-Superman II (1980) -- 7/10

-Superman III (1983) -- 3/10

-Superman IV (1987) -- 4/10

-Superman Returns (2006) -- 6/10

Marvel series:

-Blade (1998) -- 6/10

-X-Men (2000) -- 7/10

-Blade II (2002) -- 5.5/10

-Spider-Man (2002) -- 7/10

-Daredevil (2003) -- 5/10

-X-Men 2 (2003) --7/10

-Hulk (2003) -- 6/10

-The Punisher (2004) -- 6/10

-Spider-Man 2 (2004) -- 7/10

-Blade: Trinity (2004) -- 4/10

-Elektra (2005) -- refused to watch

-Fantastic Four (2005) -- 4/10

-X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) --5/10

-Ghost Rider (2007) -- 3/10

-Spider-Man 3 (2007) -- 5.5/10

-Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) -- 4.5/10

-Iron Man (2008) -- 8/10

-The Incredible Hulk (2008) -- 7.5/10

-Punisher: War Zone (2008) -- refused to watch

-X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 4.5/10

-Iron Man 2 (2010) -- 7/10

-Thor (2011) -- 7/10

-X-Men: First Class (2011) -- 7.5/10

-Captain America (2011) -- 7.5/10

Other Comic Films:

-Dick Tracy (1990) -- 6/10

-The Rocketeer (1991) -- 6/10

-Spawn (1997) -- 2.5/10

-Unbreakable (2000) -- 8/10

-Hellboy (2004) -- 6/10

-Hellboy II (2008) -- 5/10

-Watchmen (2009) -- 6.5/10

-Kick-Ass (2010) -- 7/10

-Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) -- 7.5/10

-The Green Hornet (2011) -- 5/10

-Green Lantern (2011) -- 4/10

Review: Matthew Vaughn's "X-Men: First Class" (2011)

The first good X-Men movie. I think the previous X-Men films didn't all suck, but they were all facing the direction of suck. The first X-Men movie in 2000 was the better of the previous films. It introduced a childhood full of memories, so many beloved characters went from ink to live action. I think it may be possible for this movie to have really sucked and it get a slight pass. The movie had several problems, but those problems seemed to spread like a cancer as each film after it got worse and worse. In 2011 Matthew Vaughn found the cure. It is now his best reviewed film.

Matthew had just wrapped up "Kick-Ass", a crude action film with sex filled icing, and sprinkles of humor. Movies like that make me sick and excited, reminds me of a roller coaster. Just like a roller coaster, with age, they get to be less and less appealing to me. Had it not been for the crude sexual content, the film would have been much better. I think 'First Class' could have had some of that, but chose not to, making it better. Leave the crude at home, and use creativity to make the better bold original pieces.

'First Class' chose to star some very good actors alongside some mediocre ones. There were some flaws in the acting, throughout the film, but overshadowed by the better performances. Just about every scene with Michael Fassbender (Magneto) was stellar. Giving off the feeling that Tarantino was behind the camera in various scenes. Not one other actor in the film gave a performance in any scene comparable to all of Fassbender's. Fassbender carried the film from good to very good, a big leap.

The film lacked character development outside of Magneto, and even that was a bit fast and unexplored. Instead of exploring the character for more than a minute, I felt we were given several difference glimpses lasting seconds. While they looked good, it only lasted long enough in 2 scenes.

The cinematography was good, fine, dandy. Nothing comes to mind when I think amazing, but it was definitely satisfying. Costumes and set designs had a similar problem as "Thor" did, in that it sometimes felt claustrophobic, and some designs of characters I didn't care for. An example is the character of Beast. I didn't like that he reminded me of Teen Wolf. Teen Wolf sucks. Teen Wolf needed to leave the movie.

Kevin Bacon surprised me. I don't know what else to say about him. He wasn't amazing, but he carried his own when I gave him little chance.

When I think about 'First Class', I think about a few disappointments, and an amazing scene with Magneto in a pub. Magneto in that pub was the best sequence in the film, and if it were to loop, it could contend with some great films. The downside is that they connected this film with the others instead of trying to remake the series.

The film is a must see for thrill-seeking, quality film hunters. A must own for anyone who sees the film.

"X-Men: First Class"

7 / 10

Review: Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" (2011)

It's time to nerd out and examine another comic book movie. I did not know a whole lot about the lore and character before watching the film, but I probably knew more than most. God guy, holds a big hammer, breaks things... that guy.

The film has a great story, Thor aims to please his father outwardly while pleasing himself inwardly. In doing so, ends up breaking his father's law. When his father realizes the laws have been broken, confronts his son, failing to repent or turn from his mistakes, pushes on in trying to justify the decisions. His father then banishes him from their world to Earth, a place which equally matches his selfishness, a place where he belongs. Thor's father makes himself available in the form of his own hammer and casts it to Earth, available only to Thor if and when he comes to realize his dependence on his father for his power, turning away from his selfishness. Thor does, and is enabled to lift the hammer, redeemed, able to confront his mistakes and fix his mistakes. Then he is embraced again by his father.

The character development was sufficient, but sufficiency isn't something I settle for. I would have preferred to explore the characters a bit more than the film did. I think the film was too excited to include too many characters for the sake of something grander than it really was. Yes with the lingering existence of an 'Avengers' film, but this is supposed to be a focused introduction film, not a pre-Avengers film.

The film was shot with unique style. The slow motion was fine, sometimes better than fine. I don't like how rushed everything is in the film, every place you go, everything you see, you only see it for a second. Nothing is really explored beyond introduction.

I was excited during the film. The story made me feel most of the emotions it wanted me to. However, the sets were causing me to feel a bit claustrophobic. The town Thor fell to and spent most of his time in, felt like a town of 2 people while the villain who enters the town is supposed to be threatening the planet. I don't believe the threat is that great when his power goes from erasing people and things from existence to simply igniting things on fire. These things are easily overlooked when something significant is happening, and I believe the only significant thing in the movie was the story.

The acting was mediocre at best. I am not a huge fan of Portman and haven't seen enough of Hemsworth. There wasn't a huge demand from their performance so their mediocre performance doesn't stick out as much. I believe any C or B-list actress could have filled the roll for Portman, and Hemsworth perhaps replaced by any muscular B-list actor.

The costumes and such looked fine, everything seemed to look the part regardless of preference. But I did wonder where Thor's helmet was for 99% of the film.

If you haven't seen the film, see it. If you have seen the film, I bet you have your calender marked for when you can again.

"Thor"

7.5 / 10

Review: "The Lincoln Lawyer" (2011)

Good old Matthew McConaughey. He seems to find roles of the same value, none of them of any significance. This was a film scripted for the 90's, a crazy out of the world, see through court room drama. Everything the film tried to tell us was a secret, was obvious. There was no real trickiness to it, and even if there were good tricks, its like good sandwich meat wrapped in moldy bread. There is nothing in this film that makes it passed mediocre. If you want to vegetate on the couch and watch something with no expectations of a good time, and don't have ANYTHING else to do, then MAYBE as you flip through the channels on your T.V. you MIGHT pick this movie over "Dog Whisperer".

The movie might not be too bad for those who don't care about quality of film vs. a cheap thrill. But I consider myself a conasour of quality, and I reject this one. If I saw this movie being given away at Walmart for free I might take a copy. McConaughey is just boring to watch on anything, and come to think of it, I am not sure if there was ever anything I saw him in that he didn't cause me to feel bored.

The film isn't shot with high expectations, the crew seemed to just do their job rather than strive for anything other than normal Hollywood standards. In every scene, you are reminded that the ideas have been recycled already, time and time again. Skip this movie if you can.

"The Lincoln Lawyer"

5.5 / 10

Review: Greg Mottola's "Paul" (2011)

Greg Mottola previously helmed "Adventureland" and "Superbad", and with some similar humor, created "Paul". Greg Mottola is not a very moral, or modest man. He lets the monster off the leash in each of his films, allowing for crude sexual humor, mocking religion and law, and embracing the breaking of the law with a heavy emphasis on drugs and alcohol. In "Superbad" it was a crude film about teenagers chasing sex and alcohol. In "Paul" you get a couple of adults, an alien, and a bag of drugs and out comes a see-through comedy with minor humor shown in each of the movie's previews, allowing for no real enjoyment. The puns on law enforcement and religion is also a page frequently used, and I was convinced this movie was going to be something special, until the same old jokes which are pouring out of all the D-list flicks are run dry.

Seth Rogen provided us with some slightly funny moments as the alien's vocals, but just too tainted by the not-so creative team writing the movie. I keep hoping for a funny Simon Pegg / Nick Frost film since "Shaun of the Dead" but I am constantly let down.

There aren't any scenes which were striking to me, nothing more than a couple of losers, with a loser CG character, a loser story, with a loser direction. All is lost.

Box this film up and send it into the $1 bin at Walmart, where it will be forever. If you have the chance to see this movie, don't. You will feel less defiled, and there are plenty of things you could better spend your time on, like clubbing your toes with a hammer.

"Paul"

4.5 / 10

Review: "Battle: Los Angeles" (2011)

I found a picture from the film that accurately describes my reaction to it.

If you thought "Independence Day" was bad, this has broke new ground for you. This movie is one giant "welcome to erf" audio clip of Will Smith. This movie is anything but subtle, anything but interesting, and anything but original. I wasn't sold on this movie sucking too bad until I saw Michelle Rodriguez's face in the movie trailers, then I knew. I saw it because I wanted to experience the American male's desire for bullet's and explosions. Boy was there bullets and explosions. It is just too bad nothing that happens makes me care or believe anything the movie is telling me.

Everything the movie introduces continuously makes the whole project worse. Every scene is worse than the previous. There isn't a single character developed, not a single good scene or shot in the film. The action is simply bad. The director spent too much time in boot camp and not enough time thinking about how to translate "real" to film. The film felt too adamant about portraying a "real" soldier instead of concentrating on filming a decent movie. This movie seemed to exist for the sake of creating video games. If you could find a youtube video of a 4 year old with a water gun, it would be a better movie than this one. This movie was embarrassing. There is nothing good to be had. If someone asked me to create a list of the top 1,000 alien movies, this would not be on it.

"Battle: Los Angeles"

2.5 / 10

Review: John Wells' "The Company Men" (2010)

John Wells makes his directorial debut with "The Company Men" in 2010. The film stars Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, and Chris Cooper, a story about corporate downsizing and the greed behind powerful business owners. Ben Affleck is one man who suffers from a rich man's panic button.

The film's most interesting man is Tommy Lee Jones' character, an aging wealthy man, contemplating morality in big business's decisions. Had Tommy Lee Jones not played in the film, I suspect a very large weight would have been added to Affleck, it would have crushed him, and the film. Affleck again seems to barely hold his own.

I think the film was a good one, and could have landed in the pile of most Hollywood productions about 'evil big business'. John Wells does a fine job carrying the film, giving us a few glimpses of characters with some decent development. I do think however, the character developments in the film could have made this film much more relevant. I don't feel like I really knew Ben Affleck's character very well, the story just tried to show me what it was he was doing instead of showing me WHO he was and WHO he is as he is doing things.

The timing of the film will make this film better now than it may be in 10 years, since it is so easy to hate big business right now. I would not venture to say this film is a must-see, but rather a film to see if there isn't much at the local Redbox to choose from.

"The Company Men"

6 / 10

Review: Michel Gondry's "The Green Hornet" (2011)

In 2004 Michel Gondry directed "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind", a very good film, maybe Jim Carrey's best film. Then moved on to Dave Chappelle's Block Party" in 2005 and "Be Kind Rewind" in 2008 for a couple of less significant projects. In 2008 he wrote and directed "Tokyo!", a film with mixed reviews, with bizarre written all over it.

When I think about Michel Gondry and his filmography I am fixated on 'Eternal Sunshine' only. I would like to think a director who basically starts with this film would move on to bigger and better things, but time is proving me wrong with so many examples. "The Green Hornet" was one of these examples.

"The Green Hornet" stares Seth Rogen, and as much as the cast tries, it just cannot make up for the horrendous story and choppy cinematography. Michel Gondry appears to have entered into the longest line in Hollywood, the sellout line.

The film is absurd. It has no identity. Its funny, not. Its an action, eh. Its a drama, not. The film is just terribly boring. It is hard to find the words to describe my thoughts for this film. If you absolutely hate "Rush Hour", this movie might make you change your mind on a day you are forced to pick between them.

To think this movie was released in 3D, just proves the goal of everyone involved in creating this pile of dung. They wanted in on what was "cool", taking from everything new and successful to make a Razzie worthy film. If I were going to say one good thing about this movie, it would be... that Seth Rogen hid behind a mask for most of the worst scenes, allowing me to lie to myself, "its not him".

"The Green Hornet"

3.5 / 10

Review: "Lewis and Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery" (1997) Documentary

This documentary, about Lewis and Clark's adventurous journey out west and back is great. I find the documentary extremely detailed. I love the arrangement of the documentary as well, its told on a timeline side by side with a map, showing us just what it was they did. The events described in the film are truly inspiring, to find out just what each man experienced along the way was great.

This was one of the most exciting biographical documentaries I have ever seen. It opened my mind to many new things, things I dwell about now, things I am curious about now. I think if someone wants a great bite of American history, this is a great place to start.

It was even more evident to how great this documentary was when I watched another one narrated by Jeff Bridges and about died of boredom. This documentary was over 3 hours long, each minute as great as the prior.

"Lewis and Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery"

9 / 10

Review: "Blind Spot" (2008) Documentary

This documentary is about what would or could happen if and when we exhaust our supplies of fossil fuels, particularly oil. The film examines potential economic and social concerns.

The documentary was good. I don't find myself excited about political documentaries, as they are so bias in their creations. I haven't watched a documentary which removed it's own bias to bring full truth, and this is no exception. I would prefer to hear more people speaking in terms of what could happen "if" instead of what WILL happen "if". Still, the film does examine some things that I haven't thought too much about, and cannot speak to much about without spoiling the film.

Some of the propositions in the film regarding the nature of people are fascinating as well. I still am not convinced that we are somehow running out of oil, nor am I convinced we aren't. I am being open minded, waiting on true evidence to be revealed about the particulars. I do believe in the laws of production and consumption, or consuming more than is being produced, but that is the number we need most.

There are many documentaries that would be nice to put in with this one, to give an overall picture of human beings and how we condone ourselves concerning fossil fuels. One other documentary is called "Guns, Germs, and Steel". In that documentary it discuses the keys to successful or progressive cultures. The key was food. If you can minimize the necessities of life, food being the biggest one, it creates more time to be progressive in other areas. If you cannot minimize the amount of time it takes to produce food as a culture, then that culture doesn't progress. In the American culture, we have progressed through many means, and our most current and longest lasting means is by the use of oil. The use of oil has allowed for progression in many ways. We have gone to space, dominated in wars, and expanded modern sciences... all because we have minimized the cost and time of the production of food. Food is at the root of the whole mess, we concern ourselves as a culture with non-essentials, as we have mastered the preparations and costs of food. Now, even the lowest citizen is capable of living better than the upper classes of the past.

If we lose our production of oil, or inflate the costs, we will treat oil as our food, because it feeds our lives in all its desires. Going green isn't the problem, the problem is the human condition. Human being will always infect and rape every means of progression we could ever conjure, green energy or not.

"Blind Spot"

7 / 10

Review: "The Fast and the Furious" (2001)

I found this picture to be hilarious.

Saw this film originally in the theaters, and it has been one of my favorite car films in memory, so I decided to give it another go. The film still pleases me, in areas separate from great cinema. There aren't very many films that capture a culture consumed in the auto world at all. This one is a good one for what it appears to try and achieve. I don't believe the director set out with the goal of 'Best Picture', which should be the goal of more directors in Hollywood than actually exist. There is a sense, a large sense of pushing products as advertisements in the film. From the cars themselves, to brand name equipment.

The biggest problem with the film is just about every action sequence. They obviously sacrifice much to wow the audience with obvious flaws. From a car sliding under the trailer of a big rig, to the whizzing effects outside of the car windows. Every scene where a car goes airborne is bad. But, at the end of the day, they weren't horrible enough to have me consider slicing at the film with too harsh of words.

The acting is at the 'B' level, where everything about this film rests. Paul Walker is as much an over-actor as anyone, with a few good scenes. He isn't an actor that can carry a single scene on his own yet. For that, the film relies on Vin Diesel. Vin Diesel's role on the film is easier to carry scenes on his own. They place him in a dark corner and turn up the hard-rock music and we believe he is a mysterious tough guy. No matter what lighting or music you use, Paul Walker is just as bad as his worst scenes, all equally unbelievable. Would have been more conceivable for him to be a cop if he knew just how to hold a gun, but in the film he holds it like he wants to have a squirt-gun contest. Vin Diesel pretty much is everything they ask him to be. He says little, looks big, portraying tough, and uncaring about life. I don't mind his performance in the film, but at the same time much isn't asked. His rage is finely played out, and rage isn't something I often see in film and really feel is authentic. The other cast members are just about all the same, 'C' level. They do their job with low expectations, and clock out. If the actors ever looked horrendous, I wouldn't blame them necessarily, because the dialogue was some of the worst I've heard.

The score of the film was... fine I guess. Not preferred but, it was trying to deliver a hip-hop influenced culture, so the music fit the film. It would still be nice to see a film about a similar culture shot in a serious award winning style with a great original score, but till then, we have this... what do you expect out of a movie with this title?

I believe there to be a nice sized group of people that exist in the U.S. which consider themselves to be fans of the automobile, and particularly ones that move at high rates of speed, and maybe even participate in illegal activity. It is sad to think that we are stuck with this film, Nicolas Cage's "Gone In 60 Seconds", and "Star Wars Episode 1" (podraces). Thats it. Thats all we got. Every other genre seems to have its epic film, but this one is still absent.

The story of the film is a bit easy. I would prefer something a bit more complex, more dramatic, just more creative. But at the end of the day it has cars that go fast for a purpose, says the film.

I also think this film has taken a hit for all the sequels. You scratch off those other films from existence and people might not be as harsh about this one. Maybe I'm wrong. I wouldn't ever say this film is a must see, but if you love cars, fast ones, you don't have many options.

"Fast and the Furious"

6 / 10

Review: "Conviction" (2010)

Tony Goldwyn is probably on the sunnier side of actors turned directors, but still, a very far journey away from true talent behind the screen. He pieced together a solid cast for the film, among other good decisions, but the film falls slightly better than the average movie based on a true story. Normally a true story worth giving screen time has a story interesting enough to carry the viewer anyway. This one had both solid acting and a good story. I think it is apparent enough to say the flaws of the film are in the direction of the story for the film. There are so many moments in the film that would have been better cut out.

Talented directors can reveal a character's personality without showing constant irrelevant moments. Hilary Swank, a 2 time 'Best Actress' again shows me how little I know about winning that award. She is baffling to me, I haven't seen anything that shocked me from her yet, and she managed 2 'Best Actress' awards. She is a good performer, but not one that can carry a whole project herself. If you were to compare her with lets say Julia Roberts, there are different screen presences, a distinct talent separation. Roberts can carry projects on her own shoulders, where as Swank, in my opinion cannot. It is hard to speak my thoughts about Swank without seeming to be harsh. It isn't that I am bothered by her performances, but she doesn't seem to be on the level of greatness her accomplishments would seem to put her in. Overall her performance is a good one with many moments of an unreal human being, she needs to work on that balance.

Sam Rockwell, the most interesting person in the film, and best actor of the film, shows us why he is many levels ahead of Swank. It is nice to finally see him getting more challenging roles to project his talents onto the big screen. It is a pleasure watching him perform. In this film, there are moments that bother me in which Rockwell is in the scene, but its just because the scene itself exists, not the performance.

Melissa Leo, even though she gives a minor amount of screen time, really shows up the whole cast. She could become my most interested actress at the rate of her couple flicks.

The film is very vanilla, it is a fast-forwarded, and blurry version of "Erin Brockovich" meets "Shawshank Redemption".

I really felt like this movie had more of a made for television quality to it, but maybe it was just the recycled story of so many before it, true or not. If the woman was the one jailed, or perhaps of African American ethnicity, it would have been produced by Oprah and aired on her new network. But, regardless, the only reason why the story wouldn't have struck many nerves, regardless of the circumstances, is because in a broad stroke, we have seen this story 2.5 million times already.

"Conviction"

6 / 10

Review: Yimou Zhang's "A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop" (2009)

First things first I want to say all the critics who harshly criticized this film are all dumb. The film isn't a very well received film, and I can only think of 2 reasons why that could be. One, is that it is a retake of an already semi-beloved film. The second, is that the critics were overwhelmed with such awesomeness they crapped themselves, and because they crapped themselves, they hated the experience.

Yimou Zhang is a fairly big name in Hollywood in terms of the body of work he has put together. From making such films as "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers" which were both well received in America, and then a whole other treasure chest full of films which critics managed to favor in a heavier Chinese party.

Based on critical acceptance, "A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop" was his least bit of work. I on the other hand would rank this on top of both "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers". I haven't been exposed to his other work.

I was so pleased in watching the film, when I looked into how well it was received, I was baffled. How could I love something so unloved? I really have no clue.

The film was a retake of the Coen Brother's "Blood Simple". I felt this was a better film than theirs. I would also say that the Coen's produce my most anticipated films, based solely on their direction. So by no means am I placing this film over the Coens out of spite in any way.

I felt that artistically, scenes were shot much better. Acting, more on the same level as it's predisessor. And I think direction would still have to go to the creator of the great story found in both films. Originality takes home the most points.

This film could make a great argument for me in declaring it the best film of 2009. I don;t know how well that argument would or could stand against some of my other arguments for other films of 2009, but it would definitely be in the discussions, and definitely in my top 5 for the year.

The film accomplished great humorous sprinkles on top of great mysterious drama. Only a couple scenes had me bothered, mostly in some camera decisions, but only in a couple scenes. One of the most interesting characters I have ever seen is the police officer in the film. Sets and set designs were just awesome, costumes were even better. Just about everything in this film was done to perfection.

The ending leaves us with a random clip of... I don't even know what or how to describe it. It is just odd. I told myself it was the director's signature to someone else's work as his recreation, and that made me feel better. In terms of remakes or retakes, this one gives me reason for hope in the future. A truly great tribute to and from respected directors. Just great.

Watch the movie. Its a foreign film, and with foreign films, come subtitles. Expose yourself to some great foreign films like this and you will be more acceptable to them in the future. Just great.

"A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop"

9 / 10

Review: Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In America" (1984)

Sergio Leone. The man responsible for thrusting Clint Eastwood into a legendary status in the 'Man Without a Face' series. He is also the man who brought us an almost 4 hour film about New York Jewish gangsters starring Robert De Niro. I prefer his westerns, and even more so, I prefer only his westerns in which Clint Eastwood stars.

This film took me about a whole day to watch. 4 hours for a film is no joke, it is a serious expedition, one that needs to have a lot going for it to push me to watch it. I thought Robert De Niro would be the exception to my prior Clint Eastwood theory as to Sergio Leone's success. Nope. Films still rely heavily on writing and this one is no exception. Clint Eastwood's character in the western films was interesting to watch doing anything, but not for a story's sake. This film had a less interesting character in just as mediocre a story. For a mediocre story to last 4 hours is amazing to see and think about how it could have ever have been received so well.

The acting throughout the film, from all the corners of the screen. Robert De Niro doesn't make any stand out performance but it feels like he may have been the only one to carry such a project. This film's success confirm's the film world's belief that Robert De Niro is the world's greatest actor in cinema. Only someone of his fame could have so many so interested.

If the film was squished down to 2 hours, maybe even 2 1/2 hours, it could have been enjoyed. But, the film was way too slow, and at many moments, paused. So many moments looked like it was being ripped, shredded, blended, and then spread back out trying to seem original, while failing, and looking like a Godfather film. The cover has theft on it, the tones have theft on it, and some of the events have theft on it.

The film was about a man who had twisted sexual desires, unable to control those desires, topped off with sprinkles of greed for power. It starts with children, and ends with grey hair, with little to no development in its characters.

Also, the music was like a drill to my brain. Reminded me of the "Karate Kid" soundtrack.

You have 4 hours of time to watch this film? Don't. Not unless you want to chase down all of De Niro's work... and make this the last.

"Once Upon A Time In America"

6 / 10

Review: "Patton" (1970)

I recently watched Franklin Schaffner's "Papillon", and between that film and "Patton", I am not amazed at anything the director has done. The writing on the other hand, has some uniqueness to it. "Patton" was written by a group of people, but it's main influential writer was Francis Ford Coppola, the man behind "The Godfather".

There is a special thing happening when Coppola is inking a film, but I think the strength of this film was in the great person that was George Patton. It would probably be easy to harm a true story about such an awesome person, but between Coppola inking and George C. Scott's performance, this film is nearly impossible to let you down.

The film is a bit long, probably doesn't need to be, but if it was any shorter, you may want to demand more. When I finished watching the film, I felt like I had just finished watching a documentary with real footage of the real man. It was just that good. I could complement the film in many ways, specifically about the character of Patton, but how can anyone but Patton himself receive the credit?

The film wasn't perfect, missing out on some good camera work, but for what it did give, it punched hard. I can't confirm the true nature of the characters or moments in history, but they all felt real. This is just another great character study to be desired. One of the more unique characters and/or stories of World War II.

This is a must watch film for folks who enjoy character studies, war films, or just thoroughly enjoy good cinema.

"Patton"

7.5 / 10

Review: "Papillon" (1973)

"Papillon", the film based on a man's memoirs who endured the penal colonies in French Guiana. I don't know how many elements are true or not. Many of the events seem feasible, but the specific actions of the characters don't. That doesn't necessarily make the movie good or bad, but I seek realism in just about everything I watch.

The theme of the film from what I got was a man who claims to be innocent relentlessly tries to free himself. He tries to free himself for the entirety of his life. There is a certain ignorance that comes with Steve McQueen's character in doing this most of the time. Where it may be easier or just make more sense to just accept the circumstance for his due period of time than it would be to act in some of the ways he does. I like the idea of a man who claiming innocence, or perhaps unaware of his crimes and being punished for them, and because of his own pride, ends up in far worse situations. In the end, some of these themes become much more visible as the character ages.

The film isn't shot in a way I thought was very interesting. It felt like a story where we were shown what was happening, no matter what was happening, every 5 days of the character's life. He could have been running, sleeping, or dumping. I would have preferred not to have experienced some of the places, or see some of the things I saw, and maybe spend more time on other things. I think a film like this could have easily been made into some cliche prison break film, so I credit the director for not making that happen.

I also didn't prefer the method of character developments. I want to see a character reveal himself, not just hear him narrate himself. There are so many concerns about set authenticity that sometimes it harms the story. Going out of their way to show us plant or animal life just to force us to believe they are all in a real environment.

I think the theme of the film was pretty good, at least the idea of it. As for the execution, I think this film is too aged for me to give it a pass. Some films last, and in their lasting prove their methods to have succeeded, this one did not have the same result.

If you are wondering what kind of actor Steve McQueen is, this film could give you some pleasure. There aren't a tremendous amount of good prison escape films, but "Shawshank Redemption" has the quality in all the areas you want a film to be. This film could be passed on, I don't imagine this being a must-see for anyone.

"Papillon"

6 / 10

Review: "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995)

The film which gave Nicolas Cage the title of "Oscar Winning Actor". Nicolas Cage is really the same character, or a different variation of the same character in just about every film he stars in. This one gave let him go a couple miles further.

When I came across this film, knowing Cage won the award for 'Best Actor', I wanted to see what else he ran against or what else came out that year. Sean Penn in "Dead man Walking" was one, and frankly I think the worst of Sean Penn trumps the best of Nicolas Cage. Anthony Hopkins was another nominee in 1996, for his work in "Nixon". The winner in my opinion wasn't nominated, and perhaps before his drunken lunacy, he was already getting snuffed as an actor. Yes, he won 'Best Picture' AND 'Best Director', but based on this list of 'Best Actors', I think this should have been the year of Mel Gibson winning 3, and 4 for "Braveheart". But, thats just me.

"Leaving Las Vegas" has made an impact on quite a handful of critics. If this film was good, it would appear that the director Mike Figgis is a one hit wonder. But its not. So, he isn't. This film plays out several minutes as a porn flick, while the content is obscene and just not done very well, I know certain obscenities work in films, like "Requiem For A Dream". It works in other films as well, and based on hear say, it appears to work in this years nominee for 'Best Picture' in "The Black Swan". However, both of these films has something in common, a single man who seems to understand quality obscenities, Mr. Darren Aronofsky. He is capable of capturing some of the most disgusting personalities of human beings. This isn't easy, based on how many times films seem to fail at this. Mike Figgis failed with "Leaving Las Vegas".

I never feel like anything is real, like any situation COULD ever really exist. Yes, I think drunkards exist in the condition in which Nicolas Cage performs, but none of the story around him to support his character. He is a man who lost his job, is given a check, and runs off to Vegas to drink his life away. On the first or second day he is resorting to selling his car and his watch, all the while he is buying liquor store quantities of booze on a seemingly endless supply of invisible money. My brain isn't being deceived into buying into the realism here. I think the story could have been portrayed on film far better, and I don't necessarily blame Cage for anything, but the writing of his character sure hinders my perception.

The one real good thing about the film was the performance by Elizabeth Shue, its just too bad she sunk so low as to star in porn scenes in a film without a talented direction. I would be devastated as an artist in any fashion who would pour my heart out into a project to find out the project manager didn't know what he was doing.

Every few minutes I reminded myself, the name of the film is "Leaving Las Vegas", so we are bound to move on or advance our characters in some way, eventually... nope.

Whatever. This film can be avoided. Nothing to see here unless you are somehow a die hard fan of Nicolas Cage, and in that case, eat your heart out, because you might not know a good film when you see one anyway.

"Leaving Las Vegas"

5.5 / 10

Review: Brian DePalma's "Carrie" (1976)

Brian DePalma has come up empty since the mid-90's. He has quite a few pieces of work since then which all fail, including "Mission to Mars" and "Snake Eyes".

I recently watched "Carlito's Way", one of DePalma's last decent movies. His successful works are all just pretty good at best. He has put together some popular stories, like "Scarface" and "Untouchables". "Carrie" is likewise a popular film, one of the classic horror films.

The first few minutes of the film really didn't have to exist at all. The generation of media that exists today has spoken out against lude behavior from adults playing teenagers. Of all the films I have seen so far, this is the chief. The beginning of the film starts out as a porn, full of supposed teenage girls in a school shower. They are all awkwardly nude, it doesn't even strike me as something that has ever been real. The way all the girls are just uniform in their careless state of nakedness is dumb. I understand what the director wanted us to feel, but a director with any ounce of creativity could have created something better with ease.

If you remove the lude shower scenes in the beginning, the film holds together a bit better. Doesn't hold together like name-brand super glue, but more like 99 cents store school glue.

The filmmaker really goes out of his way to try and show us a Christian lunatic in Carrie's mother. There is a problem when creators create something with a lacking insight. I don't care if you wander the halls of a mental health facility, you will find some rhythm in lunacy that doesn't exist here.

Sissy Spacek does a good job portraying Carrie, she really doesn't have much in the complaint department from me. The rest of the cast is "made for television" at best. If anyone from this cast outside of Sissy impressed any of its viewers, that would be amazing.

The story seems like its demanding more than this film allowed it to be. I am going to sit back and wait for a remake, its too bad I may have to wait for 5 remakes to finally get a director with talent. After all, horror remakes are somehow the trend right now, and none of them good.

"Carrie" wasn't as bad as a lot of so called "classics", but it was sure offensive in the beginning, and not with profound meaning or reason. I would try and find this when it comes on television to help remove some of the unessential nonsense, and you should enjoy watching the film. This is not a film for youth, and I know its taboo now to think someone may hide content from their children, but this is a case in which it should exist.

In the end, the movie comes together in an enjoyable and memorable way, with an occasional downpour of obscenities.

"Carrie"

6.5 / 10

Review: Robert Benton's "Kramer vs. Kramer" (1979)

Robert Benton shot "Kramer vs. Kramer" after completing "Superman" (1978) just a year before. Robert Benton doesn't have a hugely popular body of work, but in 2 years, he gave the world his best.

The film itself won a handful of awards, including 'Best Picture'. Personally, I think the film falls a little just because it stole awards away from other films that year. Other films released, and snubbed, were "Apocalypse Now" and "Alien". When "Apocalypse Now" comes out and doesn't get the Academy Awards to look their direction, that tells me something is wrong.

I don't want to take away from what Robert Benton did with "Kramer vs Kramer", but it just wasn't the best of 1979, I think it was perhaps third best.

This movie was overall easy to watch. The film asks some questions that should be asked, and confronts some things that should be confronted, but these things are a bit small. I prefer grander questions, and going from watching "Blade Runner" to this just bothers me a little.

Dustin Hoffman gives an interesting performance, but there isn't anything over the top amazing about it. I always associated Hoffman's name with near greatness, but now I wonder how and why that is. He could be the best, most solid, mediocre actor out there. And another supposed legend, at least in terms of the world of actresses, Meryl Streep, is fine, but there are probably a million people on the planet who can create fake tears and look sad for a few minutes. I cannot say I was astounded, amazed, or shaken in any way by the performances in this film. Some of the traits, or moments by these characters can be imagined as real, but not as a whole. I have never seen the world react in a way that Meryl Streep's character does, for any reason.

The film had a good flow, above average performances, decent story, but I can tell it was washed with bleach because everything is a bit faded. Anyone should be able to pop this on their television and enjoy themselves, but they shouldn't be left with anything profound.

"Kramer vs. Kramer"

7 / 10

Review: Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" (1982)

In this world, there are just 2 Fords. There is the great American auto-maker, and there is the great American actor. One is currently a sell-out. The American auto-maker, identifies a country in need, and created thousands of jobs based on supposed kindness on specific cities in which their factories exist. It seems the auto-maker is an icon of truth when they declare such things, because while all the other American manufacturers are moving out of the country, Ford shows no desire to do so. Harrison Ford on the other hand, looks like he would sell himself to whoever, for whatever.

Harrison Ford starts out his career with some fantastic work, putting together a body of work to rival for a "greatest ever" title. At least until the early to mid 90's. Yes he had his flops, but its hard to find people who haven't. But, the problem is that since then, he has delivered virtually all flops.

Makes me wonder how someone who has masked some of the most iconic names in overall storytelling, and go all the way to the gas station bathroom floor. The man has played Indiana Jones and Han Solo for goodness sakes. But hey, he has to do whatever it takes to put 1 million pounds of bacon on the table right?

Before he sold his soul to Hollywood fail films, be was cast to play Rick Deckard in "Blade Runner". In this film, we get a tough and rugged police officer charged with chasing down human clones. In this story, he is confronted with a question. The question posed could be greater than any other question an average Friday night film goer could ever be exposed to.

The film isn't perfect, but being made in 1982, its about as close as what could have been so.

When I think about great monster movies, I can easily get lost in the vastness of monsters. Even more so when I think about the sci-fi genre. But I will say however good Frankenstein is at being a monster, the greatest shark of all time has a bigger bite. Jaws has made itself the superior monster film, and its not because the monster is flawless. Its not even superior because of its story. Its superior because the monster and the story both captured in such a way, that it couldn't be overlooked, it couldn't achieve anything less than greatness. While so many monster films have their lovers and haters, or their debaters, "Jaws" is the champion of monster films.

I want to say the same about "Blade Runner", but to say that without specifying anything more than "sci-fi" wouldn't be fair. I can say however, it appears to be one of the most influential films in general, of all time. I don't want to label the film in some lame way as a "greatest film about the future". At the same time, its hard to wrap your mind around what and how to go about explaining its greatness in terms of putting it in a "greatest" list.

There aren't many science fiction films which have great ideas, great performances, and great direction. Most of the time, even with some of our most beloved science fiction films, we sacrifice or overlook some attributes because they meant or mean so much to us in fantasy. This one however escapes fantasy and enters you into a world which questions your very own ideology. Films like this are those which remain the test of time, those that have grander things to say than say common action sequences pleasing to my current desire. Every year of my life, looking at it in hindsight of watching this film, seems a bit ironic. The world is making similar decisions, which hopefully will result in people asking themselves the very question.

The question. That is what I will refer to it as, and unless you see the film, and appreciate and understand the film, you cannot be in the club.

I can talk about the performances, or the cinematography, or whatever, but there are more intangibles to consider and wouldn't be worth talking about. This is a must see for any sci-fi lover.

"Blade Runner"

8 / 10

Review: Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight" (1996)

I put this film on, not knowing what to expect. I had not seen a trailer, and read maybe half the synopsis. I saw the film was made by Paul Thomas Anderson, and there were a few comments which pointed to potentially good characters in the film. The film does have some good characters. However, with the list of P.T. Anderson's work as of now, he has much better characters in everything else I have seen.

John C. Reilly makes me sad he ever teamed up with Will Ferrell. He appears to be able to hold his own in dramatic fashion. This film, "Magnolia", and so many of his supporting moments in other various films. I would have liked to see his rugged mug go on to conquer greater things. But as of now it seems he is on the road moving paycheck to paycheck, selling out to the next pile of crap.

In this film, John C. Reilly is good, and perhaps that is being generous. There were flaws in the film here and there, but it seemed the leading man in Philip Baker Hall, support from Samuel L. Jackson, and Gweneth Paltrow were all superior.

Each character brings their unique level of interest, and the pace of the film is good, but for some reason I am left with a void. I felt that the story was fine if it was read to me, but seeing how everything happened, I think there was much that could have been done better. This was P.T. Anderson's first major film, so there is a bit of room for failure.

In the end, I think I would have liked to see more twists and turns in this type of drama. Most of everything was a bit transparent with one decent unguessable moment.

There is enough substance in the film to carry you to the end without wishing you hadn't, but then again, I may have only seen the film to put a check in the last box remaining for a P.T. Anderson film, and may not have the same result for someone else.

All in all, the film is empty in greatness, but enough mediocrity to carry you through.

"Hard Eight"

6.5 / 10