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

Boy oh Boyle...

Danny Boyle first showed up in my life in "The Beach" starring Leonardo DiCaprio, which was a more of a lame story with an odd thrill to it. I wasn't sure why I was feeling the thrill, or even a thrill, but in the failed film it was still present. The acting in the film was solid, but its just too bad you don't care about any of them. The story is just the biggest crap shoot surrounding the film. Perhaps the reason is there is about 10 genres wrapped into 1, and the film doesn't focus on any one of them throughout the movie, creating a mess.

"The Beach"

5.5 / 10

After that was "28 Days Later" which could be considered the best zombie movie ever, but I don't think outside of George Romero, there are many zombie films to even look at. If you were to place the film into a suspense genre, it would be far above the average "good". The styles used in this film, the sound, and actors, really set up for a really unique style of film-making which seems to be a trend some directors desire to go, and almost universally admired by the film goers. By this point in Danny's list of achievements it seems to me he is beginning to identify himself with good and bad styles, and beginning to run with the good. The no name cast performed pleasantly, with a new technique of sound, all around a very interesting story. The one flaw that sticks out like a sore thumb for me, is really just because I have been such a huge fan of zombie ideas, that I feel that realism is missing from the zombies themselves. It is one, if not the first time I have seen fast zombies, but I want to see zombies which have a variety of body conditions. When I think zombie, I think flesh eater, and it didn't seem like the zombies wanted to consume so much as convert the living.

"28 Days Later"

7 / 10

Next on the list of Boyle... 2007's "Sunshine". This was the first time, and perhaps the only time Chris Evans can be seen in a good performance. Danny also brought back Cillian Murphy from his work in "28 Days Later" with a superb role. Cillian Murphy at this point proved his value as an actor. The film was a slight let down as I allowed it to be built up a bit more than I should have. The cinematography was between good and great, and the special effects were solid. Considering the flaw, its really only bits of the story here and there, or maybe even the hope I personally held for the film which drags it down a bit. I could go into the story, but for spoiler sake I won't. Still, I feel this was a slight upgrade to "28 Days Later".

"Sunshine"

7.5 / 10

His next... affiliation... was a sequel to his original zombie flick, "28 WEEKS Later". Fans after the first film were dieing for a sequel, and a sequel they got. The problem was that his affiliation to the film was merely the producer, so the styles were off, and it didn't hold up to a faithful addition to the now, series. The actors were a let down, sound, cinematography, and most of all the story. I felt this one belonged more with the Resident Evil series than the 28 series.

"28 Weeks Later"

5 / 10

Danny's most impressive showing so far in 2008 was his latest work, "Slumdog Millionaire". This film really opened peoples eyes to foreign films, even though it would hardly be considered foreign. Stories outside of America, and not medieval, can also be interesting. I haven't had a problem with that concept before but I feel like its a general perception. The performances of the film were memorable and the way the story was captured was even more so. The music was captivating, and the cinematography was great. Everything just felt right. When I grant points to films I also evaluate the ability and desire to revisit the film as part of the process, and that I think is where the film falls slightly. The film was so good, because of the style of journey Boyle took me on, but I don't know that the power of that journey can be revisited anytime soon.

"Slumdog Millionaire"

8.5 / 10

And now, in 2010, his most recent film... "127 Hours". Before this film, if someone were to ask me if I was familiar with Danny Boyle, I would say the name sounds familiar, and with helpful reminders of his work, I would then be able to connect the dots... but now he is etched, etched in my brain. He is etched because he may have provided the best film of 2010, if not, top 2 or 3 or 2010, while providing the top 3 best performance by James Franco. The power of this film was extraordinary. The film in its few moments of hilarity could cause kidney failure. The character's decisions would cause Mr. T to "pity the fool" and the moments of sadness would cause James Dean to rethink himself when he said "dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today." This film is as ridiculous as my last sentence, the film is just ridiculously good. When I try to think of the flaws, and there are some, they just aren't big enough to be seen without a special lens. The performance in this film should project James Franco to another level. The thrilling nature of this film will have you not on the edge of your seat, but sliding down your seat. To think of this movie having been done better feels like an impossibility. It was nearly perfect, I go back and forth trying to decide the final half point between a 9 out of 10 and a 9.5 out of 10. When I think of the films I put in the 9.5 category vs. the 9, I think it should sit right below the likes of "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country For Old Men" at 9.5, and should be a solid 9.

"127 Hours"

9 /10

Danny Boyle, the whole film world is waiting for your next move. His next move outside of directing is in the work of "Paani" directed by Shekhar Kapur who has a filmography which includes: Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Four Feathers, and Elizabeth.

Review: James Dean in 'Rebel Without a Cause' (1955)

When I think of James Dean, the marketing for 'Route 66' always shows up in my brain, with all the artists portraying him alongside Marilyn Monroe and Elvis. But to consider James Dean in the same breath as Monroe and Elvis always felt, fraudulent. So, I finally sat down to examine one of the more iconic Dean films, the rebel.

The film started off well, with a few hiccups, but well nonetheless. It was hard to see Dean as anything less than 21 years old, but here he portrays a more youthful character with obvious flaws. I think the perception of ourselves in high school is not what we see when we encounter a schooler today. I think we would, or at least I would like to think of myself as adult as Dean was in this film. Hollywood I think has portrayed adults as children for much too long, distorting realistic portrayals of that culture. You could make the same arguments against "Grease", "Carrie", "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", etc. These films clearly have adults portraying children, and for my brain, it never works. "Napoleon Dynamite" wouldn't work except it adds to the hilarity of everything happening, as opposed to what is happening in other films whether a comedy or not.

When I think of films that do, I think about "E.T." in the moments of all the children throughout the film and portraying real youth filled desires throughout the ages shown. I am not a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, but it does capture a bit more realistic take on the personalities of children. I think "American Graffiti" is another successful take, I think it borderlines on a few levels, but portraying the shift from high school to college, it does a superb job in capturing a culture.

James Dean's acting was really mediocre as well, and I don't see from this performance how he could generate enough ability to carry a film like so many others. He definitely doesn't have the ability on camera that Elvis does with a microphone. Maybe famous tragedy is just enough to project someone into the halls of glory eternally, at least on this rock, but I just don't make the connection. He is no more than a decent actor with mediocre charm.

The film is really sporadic, not really identifying itself in one or even 2 patterns. Instead the film turns down a different road every few moments, so much that I would just ask to be dropped off. I think that this film will keep fading as it is tested by time, and the truly great or even good films will make it through.

As bad as I feel the direction was in the film, Dean's presence was pretty much the only bearable part of the film. Really too much melodrama with things I have never seen before or believe exist in any form. It was a marketing film, a film to project Dean as a Hollywood prop for women.

"Rebel Without A Cause"

6 / 10

Review: Edward Zwick's 'Defiance' (2008)

If I would have found myself in the theater seeing this film on opening day without having seen the trailer or having heard any reviews, it might have been like a blind man leading himself off a cliff. Instead, I saw the trailer and read reviews, and all signs pointed to a flop. So what did I do? I did what a lot of Netflix lovers did, noticed it was free and instant, and all I needed was 2 hours of my life. I won't say it was a cliff, and I surely wasn't blind, but by the end it was clear I was naive, so it was more like an embarrassing. It was like being caught with your zipper down, everyone knows it happens, it sucks when it happens to you, but its just something you shrug off and forget about...

Defiance stars a couple people who solid B grade actors who sometimes pull off some good solid performances. This movie doesn't make for many moments of good performing, and actually feels like a long silent war documentary which concentrates on showing us trees and snow, then the 2 minutes of action. When I think of World War II, I think of terrifying action and terrifying drama, and normally both are happening in the midst of each other. This film isn't really convincing me of anything, ever.

This movie is supposed to be based on a true story, but if this was true, I don't know what to think. The things that happened in the film, or try to happen, would seem much, much more dramatic than they occur. But like so many American action movies, they seem to carry along enough spark to get the viewer all the way to the credits. What was the spark? I think the spark was wondering what in the world Liev Schreiber's character was going to do, and unfortunately he waits to the last breath in the film to reveal the ounce of excitement.

Edward Zwick, the director, had previous work such as Glory (overrated), Blood Diamond (solid), The Last Samurai (Solid), Legends of the Fall (Solid)... so I don't expect this director to keep failing on this level...

This movie could have been made better in a 30 second short film by Christopher Nolan... maybe 15 seconds... because surely this film had no need to be as long as it was.

"Defiance"

4.5 / 10