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

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

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

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

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

"Paul"

4.5 / 10

Review: "Battle: Los Angeles" (2011)

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

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

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

"Battle: Los Angeles"

2.5 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

"The Company Men"

6 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Green Hornet"

3.5 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

9 / 10

Review: "Blind Spot" (2008) Documentary

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

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

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

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

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

"Blind Spot"

7 / 10

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

I found this picture to be hilarious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fast and the Furious"

6 / 10

Review: "Conviction" (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Conviction"

6 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop"

9 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Once Upon A Time In America"

6 / 10

Review: "Patton" (1970)

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

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

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

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

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

"Patton"

7.5 / 10

Review: "Papillon" (1973)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Papillon"

6 / 10

Review: "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Leaving Las Vegas"

5.5 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Carrie"

6.5 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Kramer vs. Kramer"

7 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Blade Runner"

8 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Hard Eight"

6.5 / 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January:

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

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

February:

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

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

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

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

April:

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

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

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

May:

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

20th - "The Hangover 2" (Comedy)

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

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

June:

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

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

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

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

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

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

July:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August:

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

19th - "Conan the Barbarian" (Fantasy)

September:

23rd - "Abduction" (Drama/Thriller)

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

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

October:

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

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

November:

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

December:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Release Dates - 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. "Rabbit Hole" - Snooze.

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

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

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