Review: Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" (2010)

Well in the last month there were 3 films I wanted to see. One being 'Expendables', two being 'Scott Pilgrim', and three being 'The Other Guys'. I have been busy lately, or at least my time has been occupied enough to see these lesser films. I did make time for 'Scott Pilgrim' a couple weeks ago...

This film I think reveals the trend of Michael Cera dieing. Michael Cera made a film called 'Year One' which cost him a portion of his fan base. The same poison happened to 'Napoleon' himself when Jon Heder went out and flopped on pretty much everything after his debut. Cera, I think can resurrect his career if he puts himself into more original projects which helped launch him in the first place. I think 'Scott Pilgrim' was a step in the right direction, but it doesn't look like people are interested anymore.

Some people say this may still have a chance at a DVD phenomenon, but really, how often does this happen? Not often enough to be confident. For the time being it looks like the film is extremely limited on its audience, targeting a specific nerd community which does include myself. That community is or has been influenced by early gaming, and sarcastic modern humor.

The film for me never took off like I wanted it to. It was like going to the world's biggest bird exhibit only to watch it swim. It did amazing things, but it never really filled the void you wanted it to.

I like comparing and illustrating my feelings, and when it comes to the style and story telling of the film it was like walking into Baskin Robins Ice Cream to pick your favorite one, only to have your friend walk out holding one for you already. The one picked is good, but its less for 2 reasons, one, you didn't pick it, and two, you only like cookies and cream so much.

The film was overall sufficient and satisfying, but many at many points the film failed to make it there. The movie just seemed to try to be something really hard, and you could see it, and because you could see it, it became less. For sure this is going to be one people will buy on DVD special edition or can the whole idea of owning a copy of the movie all together.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. The World"

7 / 10

Review: Christopher Nolan's "Inception" (2010)

Before seeing 'Inception', the film was my 2nd most anticipated film of the year, behind 'True Grit' and in front of 'Iron Man 2'. I was so pumped up about the film prior to seeing it, the trailer had promised me great things, it is starring some of my favorite actors, and directed by one of my most prized directors.

The film is about a man trying to return to normality after destroying his life with the technology capable of creating dream worlds when he and his wife enter. When they went in, only he came out, and now separated from his children, he believes doing one last job for an individual promising him an ability to return to his children, they engage in the most epic journey yet.

The best, absolutely by far the best thing coming from this film is the idea promoted in the film about altering time and space in a dream. The film explains that in each dream world time is extended, for example you may be alive in your dream and experience 50 years while only actually spending 1 or less years asleep. From a storytelling perspective it is capable of justifying all sorts of different angles and directions. Time is a very sensitive fact in storytelling, everything moves along a single timeline, whether you go back and forth to tell a story, it still rides on one line. In this movie there are infinite possibilities in how many lines can exist. I like that.

Now the film, directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Mr. DiCaprio, the film looks... excellent. Everything is so clear and vivid, its just astounding. The ideas presented visually is remarkable. The story as a unit is solid. The acting is surprisingly, merely, sufficient. To have a cast like this come together for a film, I would have expected a great mind in Christopher Nolan to somehow include scenes that can pull out the talent in each individual, but it didn't happen. Everyone was just good at what they were asked to do.

Movies like this, like 'The Sixth Sense', are much more difficult to watch and be just as or close to as entertained as the first time watching them. 'Inception' indeed suffers from the one time knockout.

About 2 weeks or so after seeing it the first time, I saw it again. I was bored, not because what was shown wasn't dazzling, but it just showed me how much the film relies on its mysteries to carry the film. I for the first time didn't pull anything out of it the second time, I actually payed attention completely the first time. Normally there is a cracker or snippet left to pick up on an outing or two after, but nope. I was completely satisfied after the one viewing.

Movies I would or could compare this to would be 'The Matrix', and a 'Bourne' film. Action packed, wild ride through a mysterious story constantly asking questions while only leaving maybe one open in the end. Just not enough for another outing for awhile.

I recommend this film very much for those who have not seen the film, you will indeed be blown away. But, stay away from seeing it again for awhile to help preserve it.

'Inception'

8 / 10

Review: Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" (1980)

I watched this film right after watching 'Stalker'. So, back to back slow movies, with legendary directors. The difference in the two films for me juts boils down to interest and style preferences. I hold Scorsese as the reigning champion, and in a huge way, a fading champion. With boxing on topic, I think of Scorsese as an aging boxing champion with old timers on his side, and who has arguably the best career ever. On the other side, you see the risen stars in the Coens and Nolan as a couple. They are taking their game further and further with every project, moving at a pace that would put Scorsese 9 feet under if they ever went head to head.

In Scorsese's outing of 'Raging Bull', I think I agree with a critic named Joseph McBride, who writes for Variety, in that he thinks the film is overrated. Even further he makes an observation about the characters Scorsese gives us, in being they are never people we would want to know, or have exist around us. They are all darker twisted characters, and maybe that is a huge reason for the fascination in Scorsese's films.

Most of the time, I like Scorsese's work, and find his characters very interesting. This time I don't. I am bored out of my mind. Watching a group of people, who I never cared about, be... boring. When I watched the film I failed to notice the film was written based on a true story. The true story status is really the only solid legs the film has in my interest department. Performances are good, cinematography may be fine if it fits your style of film making, but its not mine.

There are several time I wish I could just fast forward through the film to get to the "good parts", like I'm watching 'Commando' or something. Not that 'Commando' gets a single star out of 10, but there are some fireworks in the action scenes, even if they are just sparklers... 'Raging Bull' was the equivalent to spending $100 on a single firework, and when lit, it just melts, ruining everything. It looked cool before lit, it cost a lot, and was even highly recommended... but unfortunately, duds will always exist... even on the highest quality.

The action in 'Raging Bull' isn't trying to appeal to the normal action fans, instead takes a more poetic style to it. Portraying its action with flashing lights and frontal positioned shots, with more over drama is just screaming Broadway play. I respect the writing from a true story perspective, but respect is where it stops. I cannot enjoy myself watching this film. When I look at the glory this films receives on all the film critic lists, it really sickens me, and it makes me feel like I did with the Bush vs. Kerry Presidential ballots, it felt like a recount was needed then, like I feel like one is needed now. There just is no way my mind can wrap itself around the idea that this film is in a top 50 films ever discussion unless dead people are voting.

So, my emphasis in the end is on it's boring story. The film is shot well, not spectacularly, but well. The adaptation by assumption seems well enough, acting is well... but I just don't see anything great in the film, instead mediocre or well at best.

'Raging Bull'

6.5 / 10

Review: Andrei Tarkovsky's "Stalker" (1979)

Last month I rented 'Stalker' via Netflix, and kept it for a whole month before conjuring the patience to watch this for the first time. I wish I had seen it sooner, but the sooner I would have seen it, would have marked the possibility of the only time I would ever see it. This film is intense, it digs deep in its philosophy, which the viewers can only pull a handful of ideas from as the film was made by Tarkovsky for specific individuals in his life. So, the key is forever lost to the whole idea of the film.

This movie was far ahead of its time, so far in fact that the flaws of the film are what couldn't really be done during the filming of this project. We don't get too much insight on the "Zone" or of the mysteries within the film, instead we are shown through the means of great suspense, that the threats are real. The dialogue in the film leads to often interesting conversations which causes much thought. This is a very unique example of science fiction. Today's sci-fi shows us a couple ideas about a monster or alien, and then they take us to them, there is a fight, maybe a woman needing rescue, then the hero wins. In this films' take on sci-fi, like so many of the greats, questions are posed, and few answered, leaving much to be discussed and debated afterwards. There are successful films which operate on a level that don't ask questions, but the more intriguing ones do. If you dig deep enough into most films you can force ideas out of them, but the ones that ride on their ideas are the ones that last. This one will last. Unfortunately this will probably either get a remake or just get ripped off of later down the road, while the writers won't have a full idea about what Tarkovsky was thinking.

The cinematography was superb, the landscapes, costumes, set designs, acting, it was all great. This film receives so much credit for originality that it surpasses modern greats, because most modern greats are only great because of what came before them. No shark movie can be great after 'Jaws'.

This film does however come with warning. It is long. When I say long, I mean, stretched, lasts forever, lengthly, never ending, drags on and on, often boring, sometimes a nuisance, even painful, the end feels so distant, drawn out... elongated, faraway, lingering, prolonged... This is probably the slowest movie I will ever see, but for sure is the slowest movie I have ever seen.

The film revolves around a character who is a "stalker", one who escorts in and out of a place called the "zone", a mysterious place that is capable of granting the innermost desire... but this place isn't an easily bearable place.

The movie is trying to figure out the meaning of life, but it is definitely both boring, and amazing. It feels like a 500 mile log ride with only one free-fall... but the free-fall is the best free-fall ever. So its up to you whether or not you want to wait for the fall, or keep trying the shorter, less meaningful, quick fixes, or go for the big bang.

This is one of the easiest reviews one can do, boring, long, awesome.

'Stalker'

9 / 10

Live action 'Little Mermaid'... hear me out first...

This is not going to be like the Disney version. Disney wrote a Disney take on the classic story. The story believe it or not was not created by Disney, it was created by Hans Christian Anderson. This version is not going to be as exciting for children, as the story is more serious with sprinkles of darkness. I am excited about the idea, especially being made by director Joe Wright (Atonement). 'Atonement' feels like the perfect qualification for a project like this in the sense of the emotional romance both stories live in. More news to come on this project.

Review: Tony Scott's "Days of Thunder" (1990)

SNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZE. I wish I could end it there and take myself serious. This is what coems to mind when every 'Top Gun' hater starts to tell me why they dislike 'Top Gun'. This is every bad thing 'Top Gun' is, multiplied by 10 in being lame. The story sucks, the acting outside of Cruise sucks, but even Cruise is a snoring performance when surrounded by so much snooze. EVERYTHING sucks about this movie. Just scrap the whole thing for the sake of everyone involved, so nobody else has to endure this pile of feces. This just reminds me Hollywood has been failing beyond my viewing generation... just plain terrible. If I tried to articulate everything individually that went wrong and how, I would need to withdraw from state disability after filing for insanity.

Oh yea, and the crazy uncle from all the 'Vacation' movies debuted for me in his first ever serious role, and it failed. This guy in a serious role is like a giant fat black man playing Kingpin... oh wait... DANG IT!

"Days of Thunder"
2 / 10

Review: "All the President's Men" (1976)

I had been on sort of a drought for good drama when coming across this film, and then it poured. I was fully hydrated by this project in almost all of its aspects. The champion actor was Redford but followed up by Hoffman, both give good performances. I have seen Redford deliver before, but I have also seen far more disappointments and often want to call his success into question. But, in this movie, he elevates himself to a class of actors he is universally being held to, so deserving.

The director, Alan J. Pakula, does have a rapsheet of success, but not in too many films I have seen. In this film however he establishes his goals immediately, then sets out and accomplishes those goals. The creativity in storytelling is great. He creates suspense in places suspense doesn't come natural. The film does however lack real threat in its suspense as we never hear of or see possible threats or harm to our characters. The suspense comes from power, the power in the opposition, not necessarily in the threats or fears created by modern or common drama.

The film does conflict with some preferences I have, but still so good at what its doing it keeps you on the edge of your seat till it ends, abruptly... I am not a fan of how the film comes to a halt. The movies biggest problems are held down because of factual elements of the real events it was based on. It isn't often a movie is done better than decent when it comes to telling real events, but this one gets it good. When a film is so good at telling truth this well, it would be safe to say it couldn't have been better told. I just don't know if I will ever feel too much motivation to see it again.

"All the President's Men"
8.5 / 10

Review: "Despicable Me" (2010)

Anytime I feel like a movie stole something from another movie, even just an idea or style, it aggravates me. What aggravates me even more is when I read reviews from critics who acknowledge that and don't seem to care. If you are thieving to come up with a decent story, I will hate you when I rate you.

Dr. Evil in his own animated series, within a wannabe Pixar world, was revolting. The character had an ounce of my interest in the first half, and none in the second. There were no good characters in the whole movie, the whole time. Of course there were some moments where my cheek may have twitched, but no more. The cleverness felt stolen. The "minions" were a Pixar ripoff of the 'Toy Story' aliens, the main character was the cheesiest and most boring version of villain.
From around the critical community, everyone agree the 'Toy Story' aliens providing the overwhelming majority of the fun, and I am in total agreement. The story concentrates on attempts at comedy in the first half, but loses its identity in the second half when it tries to do what all failed comedies do, change its consistency into subtracting comedy and adding story. Anyone who can seriously walk away, without being a 5 year old, and having more than 2 or 3 memorable moments sitting in your mind, makes the project a fail. If I was watching a stand-up comedian, I think the viewing audience above the age of 6 would have begun to throw stones. I might be able to come up with 2 moments, which I was elevated from boredom to semi-interested.

This movie just proves to me Pixar is the only company worthy of this style animation. Every non-Pixar project projects the whole film into the previews, or at least every moment you would have found funny if you hadn't seen or heard it before. Pixar is flawless in its marketing techniques and yet nobody around seems to be taking notes.

I just saw through the story like I had already seen it before, every scene could be predicted beforehand. It is a miracle critics found more enjoyment out of this than the rest of the mainstream viewers. This movie and its creators are all miracles of life, these people contradict the theory of evolution.

"Despicable Me"
4 / 10

Review: All that is PREDATOR

I have been fortunate to have experienced one of the greatest alien creations film has ever known, the Predator. The first film starring Arnold, was supposed to be a film for him to be glorified as a hulk of a man with a pocket full of grenades while one handing one of the heaviest American weapons ever issued. The first Predator film is among the top for most quotable films of all time.

The graphics and all around cinematography combination in 'Predator' is far greater than any of its sequels or spin-offs. The locational shooting of this film is nearly perfect, the actors all minus Carl Weathers deliver exactly what is asked of them. They all know who they are and are all consistent with themselves.

The Predator itself is an interestingly new take on an alien. Completely new appearance, one of the most distinct creatures ever created, also is equipped with brand new ideas for weapons. There isn't anything found in 'Predator' which is found anywhere else.
When the action happens, its good. The action sequences actually happen perfectly in length, any longer or shorter and it loses consistency and interest. The suspense does exist in this film, however the suspense is different than most other alien movies. Most alien movies feature a sneaky, rarely seen creature which jumps out at people at opportune moments. This movie however takes a different approach, it reminds you constantly that the alien is always watching its prey.
How come this remains to be one of the most watched films ever? No matter who I talk to, the overwhelming majority are capable of putting this movie on regularly and enjoying themselves. Yes, there are other films you can do that with as well, but maybe not as easily, and without getting tired of it. I would consider anything that doesn't burn out, a classic. To give a classic example, 'Jaws', this is another film which you could start from any point in the movie and just go with it, without getting tired of it... another classic.

Now there are some apparent flaws in this film however, but most of the problems are due to preference of film. If you love Rambo, Predator probably isn't going to be as high on your list. There are just differences in its take on action and suspense. Or 'Alien', there is just a more serious and realistic take on that feature vs. the 'Predator' film. Both done perfectly well for what was sought in the projects, but this is where the viewer leaves with different feelings and opinions which constitute preference. I prefer realism, but boy was this action packed thrill ride fun. I like Six Flags because all of the rides are so thrilling and just loosens the skin on your face as you wiz by, but Disneyland takes the gold because also while thrilling, it shows me in its detail why it is better. The details of the entire park makes for a more believable fantasy world, where Six flags shows me maximum potential. In this comparison I think of middle-Earth in Lord of the Rings vs. Pandora in Avatar.

Extending this post even longer, I have 4 more Predator starring films to discuss.
I experienced misfortune in the viewing of 'Predators' yesterday morning. Within the first 10 minutes, if it wasn't for the consideration of others around me, would have hit the pause and rewind button a thousand times while gripping my stomach from the pain of laughter.

I entered the film with very low expectations or motivation to see a performance from Adrien Brody, but at the end of the day, he was the film's only real success. It becomes more apparent to me when actors can make it out alive by working on a deadly bad movie. I give him credit, and in this terrible project have great respect and excitement in Adrien Brody's future.

The graphics in the film were bearable, but never making me feel like much was real, especially the Predators themselves. Never did I feel like I was on an alien planet, one that wasn't EARTH. There were limited sequences involving these aliens which I felt convinced they were actually physically present. The cast and characters for this movie as a whole far surpassed the word suck. The beginning of the film has an unforgivable encounter with an unforgivable character in Stans, the convict on a most wanted list. The acting for that character failed, but even more was the person who wrote that character into the movie. Most of the characters, actually all the characters outside of Royce played by Brody, failed. Topher Grace again showed me why he should have stuck it out with cheesy television shows after his performance in Spider-Man 3 and this film. It appears that he knows just as much about himself as an actor as his parents did giving him a half a first name, and a second half at that.

On another note, and a short one, is that Lawrence Fishburne was indeed in the movie, but for a nearly worthless point. His existence would have allowed more flow for the film if it didn't exist. When and IF yous have seen the film, you will know. Till then, it will remain spoiler free.

I wish there were things in this movie I could rave about, but the movie just bottomed out. At its failure I started comparing it to the rest of the sequels, and when when you start to figure out which sequel or spin-off was better, you are in trouble. All the sequels and spin-offs sucked, so when you compare suck with suck, it still ends up suck. I wish there was a secret bottle of white-out you could pour out on the existence of some films, like this one.

I don't want to go into each additional sequel individually as the rest really have the same problems, story. The graphics are sufficient in the rest if they contained any interesting plots. Unfortunately the stories apparently were conjured up while the writer was intoxicated and under the influence of several substances. AvP2 and Predator 2 stand as the worst of the worst with a Predator appearing. Alien vs. Predator however did excite me with some fight scenes which were absent from anything since the first 'Predator'. Fight sequences that actually looked real, good, and fun. Minus the good and fun, the film implodes on itself after the only thing consistent about it, bad ideas, commits suicide. Alien vs. Predator makes bad idea after bad idea, and ends up with the main character being made a spear and shield by a befriended Predator to assist in further combat. Now, I hope no one thinks I ruined their adventure with this film with that spoiler, because that person would need a brain scan to put it in their DVD player expecting more than a couple fight scenes.
At the end of the day, if you want to see a good 'Predator' thing, there is only one option, 'Predator'. Everything else is left in the dust just like the writers and their future.

"Predator"
7.5 / 10

"Predator 2"
3.5 / 10

"Predators"
5 / 10

"Alien vs. Predator"
4.5 / 10

"Alien vs. Predator: Requiem"
2.5 / 10

Review: "The Third Man" (1949)

Sometimes I wonder how old classics like this make it to the top of film lists. There are so many of them which have been made out to be perfect or nearly perfect. I still wonder if the ratings of the films, or the acclaim could possibly change in years to come. Sometimes a film is great, but doesn't age well, that would or should hurt a status.

When I browse the classics, or venture over to check out who the Critereon collection has deemed worthy, I get curious as to what standards are used. Some films that may have been great are invisible to my eyes today. I know the industry has changed over time, where people who weren't educated in film were the ones first declaring great films, where today we have people who make it their profession to make these determinations. These people are educated in film history, and all sorts of variations. Some of these people agree and some disagree with past films. One thing however is different, the criticism given for modern films.

There are many reviews I feel are much harsher on today's film than yesterday's. It is as if the old has paved the way for the new and so any flaws which existed were overlooked because of their power or early strife. I would agree that older films endured much more than today's. But, for example, when Citizen Kane is reviewed, and has an average of 9.9 out of 10, while No Country For Old Men is sitting on an 8.5 out of 10, feels like something is missing, feels like a sort of biased perception is lingering.

I do not want to compare Citizen Kane's greatness to No Country For Old Men's greatness, as I have not yet seen Citizen Kane. I purchased the film, and it has mysteriously gone missing. But, the point I am trying to make it the greatest film of one year, when put up against another, there aren't evenly reviewed films past the 1970's. of course there may be one or two here and there. But overall it seems flawed.

The Third Man, unlike some other classics, held its own. It felt like a legend coming out of retirement to again defend a title against me the viewer. I entered the film critical and skeptical because I don't easy fall victim to black and white greatness. I am a very visual viewer of film, and if you don't tell the story in a unique way, or a way of obvious skill, along with piecing together a crew to include actors, you will not be appreciated by me. Hitchcock is probably the greatest director to have lived and died so far, and is still reigning champion over all the greatest, and I haven't even seen the bulk of his work. His influence on the industry exceeds that of anyone else so far, but I fear that may be why some of his films got such great reviews.

When someone you are familiar with, who is powerful, or influential in some way, enters the room, it no longer matters if you liked the person before that moment. That is what is called star power. Much like the Nintendo classic, Super Mario Bros. when you consume a star, you can run along the map and defeat anything you want, and the only way you die is when either your star power runs out or if you commit suicide. The same applies with people who have a certain level of star power, Hitchcock, had a high level of star power and anything he touched, was defeated. I think some of Hitchcock's work may be worthy, while others not so much, but it didn't matter when you are made up of that much star power. Whether you are a fan of a specific President, lets say you are of the opposite political party even, if that President enters the room, you make it to your knees at his feet. You are in the midst of great star power.

Now, having said that, I do think some older classics deserve the reviews they receive, but not all of them. I do my best to remove star power when I watch a movie. That is how I can be displeased by those who are most pleasing. I even tried to be unfair to 'The Third Man' by trying to hate it before I saw it. I dread black and white films. But, once you watch the story develop, along with the acting, it hooks you. As it hooks you, you begin to sit in awe of all the things the director is doing TO you. Carol Reed, the director of this film, played a lot with shadows and has a unique eye for sets.

You cannot give me a great story and think I will hold you up higher than average as a film, what are needed are a combination. Combination of acting, directing, and story. 'The Third Man' is that combination. The story is good, but the acting is great, and the directing is even better. Carol Reed made this story into something greater, with the suspense captured, the mystery captured, it was absolutely going against the notion that old films are overrated.

It was interesting that Orson Welles could be attached to such a great piece and not be so involved in its greatness.

I am still skeptical, I am still displeased by many black and white films. It does come down to preference, but one thing is for sure, when something is great, it is so hard to miss.

"The Third Man"
8.5 / 10

Tim Burton...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Big Lebowski"
8 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: "Toy Story 3" (2010)

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

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

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

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

"Toy Story 3"
9 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Woodsman"

7.5 / 10

Review: "The French Connection" (1971)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The French Connection"
7/10

Review: "Hard Candy" (2005)

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

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

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

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

Overall I would recommend passing on this pile.

"Hard Candy"

5/10

What in the world is 'Ready Player One'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Firm"
6/10

Review: "Les Miserables" (1998)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Les Miserable"
7/10