Review: Semi- "Funny People" (2009)

Why should I give a long review for this? The movie was pretty funny... took itself serious in the last 20 minutes in which ruined the whole experience, the end.

"Funny People"

5.5 / 10

Review: "20 Years After" (2008) ... was how I felt when it ended...

It has made its way to my 'Worst Ever' list. I could say some things about this movie, but why? It already consumed too much of my life. I'll say it was one of the cheapest low budget films I have ever seen, with some of the worst acting I have ever seen, among other long lists of worst things ever seen... If you find yourself watching this, maybe you would want to start rubbing the dull portion of a spoon along your wrist... heck, just to see what happens...

I was interested in post-apocolyptic stories, that is how my fingers and eyes made contact with this movie. From that moment, I was so sorry. Maybe the only context for this has no chance of happening... but IF it could, it would be done by the crew over at MST3K.

"20 Years After"

1 / 10

Review: Terrence Malick's "Badlands" (1973)

Ok, its time to get something off my chest... what in the world was Sissy Spacek's parents doing with their lives when they raised their daughter?! She plays a highschool girl at the age of 24 in 'Badlands' with high sexual content. Then again in 1976 in 'Carrie', which practically starts out as a pedophiles dream porn. I read an article the other day, not sure of the website, but it claimed that GQ magazine was wrong for photographing actors and actresses who play high school characters in a television show (Glee)... at first I thought they were dumb, as the actors and actresses are ACTING as these characters, but are realistically not these high school "children". I still think that situation is a bit different, and justified by both sides. One is careful and considerate, which is weighing heavy on the side of caution, as our generation seems to spot light pedophilia more and more, growing our subconscious. But, in a film, portraying a high school character, and WHILE playing as that character, or characters, with such sexual content, it just doesn't give me a good taste in my mouth, and as a critic, fully biased to my subjections, cannot award a filmmaker or actor for doing these things, instead, they become penalties.

Now, having gotten that off my chest, this film is no less than great. Martin Sheen proves to me time and time again why he is among the top. Just great performances by every actor in the film, fulfilling their roles perfectly. I mean, what else can someone say to build up a performance? Perfect. Its too bad James Dean came first, because I would love to say James Dean looks like Martin Sheen in this film, the superior actor, playing a character that identifies better with what James Dean was trying to do, but never really did.

Terrence Malick definitely sells his greatness in this film as he wrote and directed this great movie.

Just an all around enjoyable film. I am pushing this one on anyone and everyone, a must see film.

"Badlands"

9 / 10

Review: "Bullitt" (1968)

Well, I went into this film having heard just a few things, one of them being that this film has one of the best car chase, or just car scenes in all of film. So, I sat down, pushed play, and wow. Wow. What a slow slow drift, all the way to the "great" scene.

The film may not have been easy to make, but they sure didn't try and make that not apparent. The hardest thing I thought they did was hiring a popular actor in Steve McQueen, or wait, did this elevate him? Eh, never the less, another hard part was the destruction of great cars, and great they were indeed. There were moments during the car chase that were good or even great, but the film leading up to that was just, awkward. The director tried to tell me Steve McQueen's character was a great cop without convincing me. It kind of reminded me of all the Chinese food spots around my house, all mom and pop owned, claiming they are the best ever. You can buy sticker, and place them in the window of your business, but you better LOOK the best and TASTE the best, to BE the best. 'Bullitt' never built McQueen until the car chase scene, then to the airport.

Uggh.

And talk about a director who hasn't done much...

Now, I know I am falling into a minority group when I stand on the opposing line for this film, but, its just inconsistent with itself. I was excited a few times, but just disappointed.

Maybe there aren't many car chase movies which earn greatness, but this shouldn't be one just based on the chase itself, or else you let in the beasts like "Fast and the Furious' run rampant... which I enjoy, but to put it in ANY "great" category feels wrong.. and same goes for 'Bullitt' in my mind.

"Bullitt"

6 / 10

Review: Werner Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" (1971)

Werner Herzog can do no wrong, right? Well, it appears so, so far. This documentary is raw, as all his documentaries I have seen so far. It doesn't always take you to where you want to go, or often where you THINK you want to go, but he does take you to very interesting places. I am not fully satisfied in the places he took me in this film, but I did learn and enjoy very much what he had to show me. He doesn't just show you things you always want to see, but he is giving you his perspective, filming his interests, while not dressing anything up, which becomes intriguing. There isn't very much to say about this film, its sad, upsetting, dark, and just unfathomable. Unfathomable because of the conditions of those he chose to include and the level of relatability you have with them. If you have spare time, and like documentaries, you may be interested in taking an hour and a half of your time to watch this, but I won't be too pushy with this one.

"Land of Silence and Darkness"

7 / 10

Review: Christine Jeffs' "Sunshine Cleaning" (2008)

I am waiting for the minority group of directors to one day step it up... women. Every time I hear a movie is directed by a women, I get discouraged. That did change a bit when Kathryn Bigelow hit the screen with 'The Hurt Locker'. But still, so many women have made the one hit wonder column that I still don't have much faith in the work yet. I know its a matter of time, but I am growing impatient as the majority of Michael Bay directors keep reproducing bad babies. If Sofia Coppola can't start producing better mainstream projects, I will be upset, her father after all has provided the directors silver spoon. . . but that's the end of the list.

Christine Jeffs, the woman who helmed this film, did a decent job in conducting a few interesting moments, but I am baffled at trying to come up with a message. What in the world was she telling me? You can see most moments before they happen... that's called premonition right? No, its called bad directing.

This film makes me want to be in the room of the big company deciders, when it comes time to pick a script to finance. I want to see how they come to their conclusions, because this one had to have a bad pitch. You can't pitch this good. 2 girls, not women, GIRLS, start an amateur business while struggling to remain the same person from beginning to end.

Look, the acting wasn't bad. I don't like putting blame on actors unless their name is Brendan Fraser or they did absolutely absurd, but the main character played by Amy Adams just isn't given very much to work with. Meanwhile the sister gets a few dramatic moments which ends up in a head on collision with a homosexual confrontation. How lame.

Still, with all the ripping, I don't remember myself dreading it till the credits rolled. It did carry to the end like a drop-less log ride, partial anticipation, partial confusion, and nothing in the end.

The tank was on "E" the whole ride.

"Sunshine Cleaning"

5.5 / 10

Review: "School Ties" (1992)

Yup. Just another Brendan Fraser flick. Is it better acted? MAYBE. Is it a better story? MAYBE. Is it helmed by superior talent? Definitely not.

I am tired of these films flooding the market. If you live in a town that still has a movie rental business in it, its not too late to find out what I mean. When you walk the isles, how many movies do you have to look at before your eyes find something interesting? Filtering out subconsciously, all the garbage. Isle after isle, I wonder how in the world people find a way to finance some of these movies.

This movie isn't terrible, its VERY mediocre however. Nothing can be found in this film to be called unique. The film's story was duct taped to the hood of a Lamborghini on an endless road at max speed. I just don't have time to care about anything in the movie. The one thing I was told to feel was dumb, prejudice bad, Jews good. This is the theme in so many films, that I need a good story to tag team this concept, otherwise I can watch 'Schindler's List' and KNOW I will be given something delicious, something convincing, something convicting. Brendan Fraser's character is just so unreal, there is nothing relatable. This film was unable to convince me of anything outside of boredom.

"School Ties"

5.5 / 10

Review: John Hillcoat's "The Proposition" (2005)

John Hillcoat, the man who helmed 'The Road', first helmed 'The Proposition'. After seeing this film its hard to believe the same man directed both films. Not that this was on the opposite spectrum in quality, but just in style differences.

The film just doesn't move passed its fast paced exaggerations. Almost nothing in the film allows for development in the mind of the viewer. The actors really aren't given very much to work with in terms of putting on a show of talent. The story doesn't derail from the common old violence in America, where a gun does all the talking. This style isn't inherently bad, or totally wrong, but how I have seen it executed, it just has been bad every time that I can recall. I think its constant films like this that pushes the genre "western" further and further from good. When people think "western" they think cheesy cowboy films with a lot of horses and bullets, just like this one.

The acting, based on what was asked, is mediocre. I am interested in a few of the actors in this film, just not in these roles, or maybe under this style of direction. The cinematography was decent... but then again, the word decent is just the word to sum up this film.

"The Proposition"

6 / 10

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