SteakSalad_101 Reviews

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

By far...the worst horror movie I've ever seen

[1/10 · 22 April 2008]

I very, very rarely write reviews for films that I don't see in the theater. However, this is a gross exception. Now you may think I am writing this review because the film I saw was a spectacular piece of cinema, something worth drooling over, spending $20 on and watching every Friday night with a different group of friends. But no…I am writing this review to tell you that if you ever so much as THINK of seeing it, I strongly recommend you to reconsider your decision.

Those who know me, know I love a scary film. The original 'Saw' is the only horror movie I have seen that managed to scare me. I picked up The Blair Witch Project after it had been called the scariest film since the Exorcist, genuinely frightening, and among other critics' ravings, I knew I had to give it a shot. So I made myself some tea, some popcorn, and sat down in the middle of the night and put it into my DVD player to watch on my big projection screen TV. All alone with the Blair Witch Project. Some may say, quite a daring thing to do! I may say, quite a laughable thing to do. (that is, laughable in the sense of me thinking I actually was going to be scared.) The Blair Witch Project is 87 minutes of pieces of footage collected by three young adults who go filming a documentary on the Blair Witch legend deep in the woods of Maryland. After interviewing several locals about the legend, they trudge into the woods, only to become horribly lost. They begin seeing strange things—sticks that look like witches, babies crying out in the middle of the night, rocks that magically appear in piles outside their camps…you know. The stuff from your absolute scariest nightmares.

So basically we have these three stupid people who DON'T stop cursing (130 F-bombs in one film) and these poor souls just can't find their way out of the woods. About 75% of the film is made up of footage of these people crossing streams while saying "turnip! I hope I don't fall!" and "I thought we already WERE traveling south!" The other 25% is made up of them crying during the night in their camps saying "Jesus kissing Christ, what the kissing turnip was that?! turnip!" While leaves rustle outside, rocks fall, and voices murmur. Then the morning comes. And they go back to crossing streams. Except this time, their map is gone. Ooh! The Blair Witch took the map! Getting scary, eh? Yeah, right. Then the night comes again. More "turnip! ITS BACK! turnip! WHERE THE turnip IS JOSH?! turnip!" Then the morning comes….you get the idea.

I kept thinking "This has GOT to get scarier, maybe the film hasn't gotten going yet." I was saying that throughout the whole film. I was even saying it during the final scene, and then the credits came up, and I was like WTF? Is there more? Wow, guess not. To be honest, that's what the Blair Witch Project is. And I'm not being funny or making it seem dumb for the sake of this review's success…I'm being completely serious.

All three of the people are laughable. Heather Donahue, who is an actress I love the work of, is the only one who seems mildly genuinely unsettled. The other two just scream like idiots. And then more F-bombs are dropped. Give me a BREAK already.

So yeah. Then we get to the final scene…they find a house in the woods. Pretty scary. They go in, they hear screams in the basement, and their cameras drop. THE END! Roll credits. I was thinking to myself, "They just used an hour and a half of camera time for something that could've been shown in literally five minutes." Now, I am not saying that the three people in this situation weren't scared, or wouldn't be scared. It's a pretty creepy set-up. But watching it on a screen? Bleh. It's just three stupid people who can't get out of the woods and who scream and curse at random noises they encounter. Last night I had a dream Nathan Radley from To Kill A Mockingbird snuck into my house, hacked my computer, and stole my kitchen table. And even that was scarier than this terrible movie. I'm not trying to be funny either.

So, in conclusion: mix three stupid people, a big woods, 130 F-bombs, and a bunch of weird noises that don't make sense, and you've got yourself The Blair Witch Project. I mean come on…gimme a break. Or, better yet, give YOURSELF a break—and never see this movie.

Come on, filmmakers! Give me another 'Saw' to scare me! This is your best shot?

Vantage Point (2008)

The classic assassination thriller, with a splash of originality

[7/10 · 22 February 2008]

Vantage Point was the film I chose to see this weekend at my local theater and I went in with high hopes. The storyline, which is a part-interlocking , part-flashback film (which, for the record, are my two favourite film elements combined into one!) is simple, yet complex to uncover. The film opens at a UN gathering of world leaders in Spain, with a big crowd, in an even bigger square. Suddenly the president of the United States is shot twice by an unseen assassin. The next thing you know, two bombs go off, one of them destroying the square.

The film is made up of that story told five times--each from a different point of view from a different person who was there. First, we've got agent Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid) who is back on assignment after taking a bullet for the president six months prior. He's paranoid, and picks up on any slight signal that could mean an assassination threat. Next, there's a shady looking cop who commits a strange act at the scene--is he corrupt? You decide. Third, we've got the American tourist (Forest Whitaker) who loves videotaping things. Fourth, we have the president himself, and fifth--we see the assassination unfold before our eyes. In addition to these four main characters, there are four others who are involved in the scenes, and combined, makes for a total of eight people searching for the truth--or who are somehow involved in it.

Each "vantage point" (hence the film's righteous name) offers more and more clues as to which of these people were involved in the assassination. Director Pete Travis delivers a bang-up job in making the plot line completely and utterly unpredictable. Even most people who can guess plot twists coming at any speed will be left baffled and thinking hard. My favourite aspect of the film was that it was entirely the same thing on repeat--yet different every time. There were some stupid idiots in my theater that were booing every time the scene got restarted, and that's where I think a lot of people will dislike this film, because it is undoubtedly repetitive. However, I feel the redundancy of the film adds to its original essence and its tension. The tension in the film is done very well and the first quarter of the film will have you holding on to your seat. Although there's a more than action packed climax, people who just want to see stuff blown up and people shot and car chases will be left disappointed throughout the movie. Don't worry--even throughout the redundancy there's plenty of that good stuff. My other favourite aspect of the film was its acting--Dennis Quaid was excellent and Forest Whitaker blew me away like he always does, in a role perfectly cast for him. Sigourney Weaver's brief cameos were done very well and everyone in the cast does a great job.

All that being said, Vantage Point is definitely not without its flaws. Some of the characters aren't introduced right and the execution in many scenes is done very sloppily. The climax (although ironically long) is extremely rushed and, in my opinion, was done rather poorly. Unfortunately I can't elaborate without giving away major spoilers, but it is a fun ending to watch nevertheless, and you are able to forgive the sloppy editing. The thing that made me want to cry was the horribly clichéd conclusion that shouldn't have happened. In my opinion...they should've revised the screenplay. I hope there's an alternate ending on the DVD.

So, if you're looking for a decent thriller or a movie to check out, you might just want to see Vantage Point. The classic assassination thriller, a splash of originality, garnished with great acting and an unneeded sloppy ending turns out to be one bittersweet cocktail. But mostly just sweet.

Juno (2007)

A cute film that's enjoyable for everyone

[7/10 · 21 January 2008]

I have never been the only male person in a theater audience before. Ever. But now as I have gone to see "Juno," I know what that feels like. From all the hype surrounding this movie, and Roger Ebert himself calling it the best movie of the year, I decided it would be worth walking down to my theater in below 20 degree weather to see it at a 2:45 matinée on a lazy Sunday afternoon. So I did.

First and foremost--the film is over-hyped, but I still loved it. Juno (Ellen Page) is a weird, abnormal, yet stunningly cute teenager who messes up and gets pregnant by her best friend Paulie (Michael Cera). After choosing not to abort the baby, she decides to find adoptive parents, but in turn must face being pregnant at school, at home with her parents, and of course, trying to balance the everyday challenges of teenage life. As expected, there are bumps along the way, and that's why I think Juno is not so much a movie about teen pregnancy and the dangers that come with it--but as a dramedy about growing up.

There are a lot of original, fun, quirky ideas that come along with Juno--one, primarily, is Juno's character, who you can't help but love. She's weird and rebel, and doesn't try to be popular, yet of course, she gets some unwanted popularity eventually. Ellen Page does such a seamless job portraying the character, I would not be surprised if she was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar. Then we have Juno's best friend Paulie (who gets her pregnant), who is the nerdy, skinny kid who dominates the track team, plays guitar, and puts deodorant on his legs. The adoptive parents--Vanessa, the baby-obsessed lady who wants a child so bad she's ready to jump off a building, and Mark, the musically obsessed Sonic Youth lover who forms a friendship with Juno. I could go on and on and on but you get the picture...the film is quirky and lovable by everyone.

The film has a very indie feel to it that is paired up with a cute, indie acoustic soundtrack that I absolutely loved. The acting is without question some of the best I've seen in 2007 films--the dialogue is very witty, quirky, and entertaining, and forces a smile upon your face. Ellen Page gives a phenomenal performance as the weird, pregnant Juno and she is paired with outstanding performances by Jason Bateman, who you might remember from Arrested Development, and Michael Cera. Unfortunately, though I really liked the film, it is extremely over-hyped. It does not deserve a Best Picture nomination and certainly not it's 8.4/10 rating on IMDb. The strongest point of Juno is its indie -feel and originality--the weakest, unfortunately, is the way it is executed. I can't help but think Jason Reitman, the director, sort of mishandled the film and couldn't decide on whether he wanted it to be a comedy or tragedy. Also the first half hour or so of the film is very, VERY slow and lacks charm that is found in the second half. The idea, story, and structure for Juno is absolutely brilliant--but it could've been handled so much better.

Contrary to popular belief, Juno is not just for preppy teenage girls who have dumb boyfriends who want to knock them up. Like I said earlier, this is much more than a story about a pregnant teenager--it's a story about growing up and facing the world's challenges. Paired with wonderful acting, superb dialogue, a cute soundtrack, and a brilliant story, Juno turns out to be a great, cute film, whether you're old or young or male or female.

I Am Legend (2007)

Fascinating and terrifying

[8/10 · 17 December 2007]

What happens when in modern times, a revolutionary, almost too-good-to-be-true solution to a life threatening, scary problem appears and seems to be the cure for everything that goes wrong? As if someone walked up to you one day and said "Oh, hi, here's a magical box that if you keep it with you all the time, you will never be sick, never have problems, and have a long lasting life." Would you still feel the same about your life and the people in it? And would you rely on this so much...that it would destroy you? What if that solution was the cure for cancer? "I Am Legend" is a fascinating, new post-apocalyptic thriller starring veteran actor Will Smith. When the cure for cancer is brought upon humanity, and the drug is administered to patients, hell breaks loose. A virus is created, that starts as side effects to the drug. One day in New York, the virus mutates and ends infecting everyone on the planet, with a 90% kill rate. The virus takes these people and transforms them into possessive zombie-like creatures that are deathly afraid of the light and come out at night to hunt for survivors of the virus.

Robert Neville, a brilliant scientist, is apparently the only survivor of this pandemic, being somehow completely immune to the mutated virus. He lives alone with his dog Samantha who is also immune to the air-borne strain of the virus only in New York City, which has been completely deserted. He sends out radio signals to search for other survivors while trying to maintain his sanity and test samples of the virus in his lab he has in his basement. Everything seems OK for him, from strolling the disturbingly empty, weed-ridden streets of Manhattan, driving golf balls from rooftops, and taking unrestricted tours of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Until the night comes. At his watch's beep, Neville bolts himself into his house to protect him and Samantha from what's out there--the remaining 90% of the world's population who want to infect Neville and Samantha. He mustn't be seen in the darkness to avoid the zombie/human creatures who watch his every move, waiting for him to slip up. As if this wasn't enough, Neville is plagued with dreams of the final moments of human civilization, when the aggressive decision is made to quarantine New York City, and the horrific death of his wife and daughter.

I know what you're thinking--that I Am Legend sounds like a corny, cheesy, over-used, washed up, unoriginal B-movie Hollywood pile of crap. I can assure you, it is far from that. The film is scientifically fascinating (even from a person who despises the thought of science class) and is like a window onto our own current society that where we're headed, trying to fix everything, can end in horrific situations. The images of post-day New York are extremely disturbing and horrifying, especially if you're familiar with the city as I am, from living in its metro area. Images of a blowing, dusty Times Square, complete with its usual screens and advertisements, except with cracks in the street, weeds growing out, and no people--something that anyone who's ever been to New York will tell you is simply impossible.

The movie seems to be two-faced. There is a dire, extremely thought provoking sense of caution and tensity throughout the film, even in the calm scenes, that inspires otherworldly levels of suspense. You can do anything you like in the Big Apple that is now 100% deserted--except go out at night. This makes the film both extremely entertaining, very fascinating to watch, and utterly terrifying.

Apart from all of that, "I Am Legend" is the scariest film I've seen all year. By far. And it's not everyday a PG-13 receives that reward. Not only the premise of being totally alone in a disturbingly deserted huge city that used to be home to over eight million, but in other ways as well. Unlike other zombie movies, which may you leave you laughing, "I Am Legend" has got the stuff to leave you shielding your eyes and shaking in fear. I know it had me scared out of my mind. Some of the scenes are extremely intense, grotesque, and the movie is jam-packed with utterly horrifying jump scenes that had my completely packed theater jumping out of their seats (and no, it wasn't just me). I could say that this movie is scarier than all four "Saw" films combined. Therefore--unless you can take a very scary movie, it might be a good idea to pass this one up. I feel sorry for those who saw it in IMAX. But if you can take the horror, get your tickets. If one movie this season deserves your ticket money, make it "Legend." The film is extremely well crafted and executed. Francis Lawrence delivers incredibly good direction and the editing is very well done, with horrifying flashbacks to a panicked New York, and makes the film that much more fascinating to watch. There is a strange sense of realism in the movie, something that'll make you think, "Could this be where we're headed?" Not in the sense of zombies, of course, but in other disasters. The only complaints I have with this film is the ending was much less than satisfactory, and in my taste, was a bit too clichéd. The second half of the film is still very good, but fails to deliver the tensity, horror, and strange fascination that the first half brings.

So, if you're looking for a way out of a bunch of dumb laughable zombie movies, and searching for one that actually scares the crap out of you, check out "I Am Legend." You may find yourself pleasantly surprised.

Saw IV (2007)

Riveting and mind-boggling: after three sequels, the SAW franchise sky-rockets

[9/10 · 27 October 2007]

Who would've thought that a slasher horror film franchise, after three sequels, could STILL be one of the best things Hollywood has to boast today? Not I, that's for sure. The intricate, original, crowd pleasing, absolutely shocking, riveting, suspenseful "Saw" wowed audiences in 2004 and a very solid sequel did the same in 2005.

I still remember seeing Saw and Saw II for the first time and realizing how amazing they were. Yet, I was unhappy with Saw III along with many others for reasons being: it focused more on violence than plot, there was no twist, and the ending was very unsatisfying.

I know for a fact I wasn't the only person who thought the "Saw" franchise was officially over, judging by the very disappointing third film...yet, I still possessed a strange love for these films and couldn't wait to see the fourth when it hit theaters. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece at all...but I got one.

"Saw IV" is not the average horror flick. If you're a Saw fan that likes the series for its blood and guts, you're going to despise it. If you're not willing to completely concentrate on the film's every little detail, you're going to despise it. If you feel like just kicking back, watching a nice gory horror film, and not spending a night analyzing the film, racking your brain until you drive yourself insane, you're going to despise this film. Quite honestly, that's why so many people hate this film: because they were expecting something completely different. Make no mistake--the Saw franchise as we know it is now going in a completely different direction.

Here's where the line's drawn between Saw IV and it's predecessors. With the deaths of two main characters in Saw III, you can't possibly think of how Saw IV could really be close to a decent film. Instead of a basic storyline of traps, unlucky individuals who don't appreciate their lives, and suspenseful jump scenes, Saw IV delivers a completely different premise: it's darker, edgier, scarier, more complex, more intricately designed, and more controversial than its predecessors. In some ways, the most horrifying thing about the film is instead of watching people being tested on screen--YOU, as a viewer, are tested--challenged to see what Jigsaw sees, feel what Jigsaw feels...judge how Jigsaw judges. The traps aren't there to entertain, or to make you recoil in disgust...they're there to make you THINK.

Even if you don't want to, or don't feel like it, Saw IV will whisk you away into a land of nightmare where you're forced to make the choices to what happens to the individuals on screen--you're the one in control. By the end of the movie, you'll be so shaken up you won't be able to move. For me, this one "Saw IV" HUGE points because it's actually scary, unlike II and III! It's not a body-count movie--it's a riveting, mind-boggling psychological thriller in the sense of the first film. The film feels like it balances a huge amount of plot and story and a huge amount of gore and ends up taking the cake. The film is exceptionally, brutally violent (even more so than Saw III) and some scenes are very, very disturbing--not because they are violent, but because stuff so horrifying is happening you just want to vomit your brains out. Saw IV is NOT for the faint of heart and there is some very disturbing sexual violence in one scene and another massively disturbing scene where five people in my theater got up and left...and this scene has haunted me since I came out of my theater.

Though horror veterans James Wan and Leigh Whannell, the original creators of Saw, did not write Saw IV--it almost seems better. Darren Lynn Bousman's exquisite directing incorporates a dire sense of urgency throughout the whole film, making it feel like you're watching a "24" episode.

I will warn you now the ending will confuse the hell out of you, which apparently is another reason for people to completely, wrongly condemn this film. Me and my friends spent a good two hours discussing the film afterwards and it made much more sense to us. Be prepared to watch this film with an open mind and be ready for some serious post-viewing discussion afterwards. The ending is very much like that of "The Prestige," and you may have a desire to watch "Saw IV" again the minute it ends.

If you're a Saw fan that was disappointed with the lack of psychological horror in Saw II and Saw III---fear not. Saw IV has what you're looking for and will take you to hell and back...but hold onto your dinner. I have no idea how this film made it past the MPAA without an NC-17 rating. Along with your dinner, try to hold onto your sanity while watching the film...good luck with that.

Enjoy which, is in my opinion, one of the best treats of the 2007 movie season.

Across the Universe (2007)

A modern masterpiece--the best film of 2007

[10/10 · 14 October 2007]

Ever have that experience of a lifetime at the cinema? Walking out having seen a film that truly reached out to you in the theater and grabbed you by the neck and looked you deep in the eyes, making an impression on your life that you won't forget anytime soon...and leaving you speechless for the rest of the night.

There have only been a select few films I've seen that truly gave me that experience, and I'm beyond delighted to say that the newest edition to that category is "Across The Universe," which is in my opinion the only decent film to surface since Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Across The Universe deals with six major characters--a British art student from Liverpool coming to America to find his estranged father. A preppy, pretty, high school senior whose boyfriend has been drafted into the raging Vietnam War. A black guitarist from Detroit whose son has died in a peace rally. A young Asian cheerleader, running away from her home in Ohio to go after her life. A burnt-out, wannabe singer who performs at a small club and wants to show the world her music. And finally, a college drop-out with a passion for drugs, sex, and booze in search of himself.

Somehow they are all brought together by a small apartment in New York and begin to form unique bonds with each other. In the midst of the Vietnam War, and peace movements going on constantly around them, they are drawn to fighting, drugs, pursuing their dreams, finding themselves, and above all, finding true love, which is what the movie is all about.

Across The Universe is by far one of the most unique love stories ever written and unlike other deeply romantic films you may have seen, it is not sappy in the least or aimed toward female audiences. Across The Universe is not for the faint-hearted and is surprisingly gritty, hard-hitting, intense, and even shocking in many scenes. The film is shot in an extremely awkward (in a GOOD way) "Tim Burton" style that will be admired by anyone who gazes upon abstract art at a modern museum, and I was truly mesmerized.

The film seems like it is eight or nine hours long, and in no way is that a bad thing. Coming out of the theater after a 4:30 screening, when my watch showed 6:45pm, I thought it had frozen at some time during the movie. The person I saw it with couldn't believe it either. Across The Universe feels like three or four films--all with separate story lines, and all aimed at different audiences--merged into one, creating a bold fusion of film-making art. I'm being quite literal when I say it has a little something for everyone.

And as if the intricately written screenplay and exquisite direction weren't enough, the film is paired up with astonishing performances by EVERYONE in the cast, most of them largely unknown actors, and everything is hauntingly believable. I'd say a good 60% of the movie are Beatles songs, each song seemingly about the current event of the film, and the songs are sung by the actors, all of them with great voices. A lot of times I find musicals kind of worn-out, washed-up and boring, but never in my life have I been so captured by the beauty of film and music together--as one being. It was the absolute perfect addition to the film and put the icing on an already deliciously tasty cake. If you're a big Beatles fan like I am, you'll pick up on hundreds of intimate, subtle references to the Beatles' music such as character names, locations, and events.

Quite simply, this film is nothing short of a modern masterpiece, and will sweep the Oscars come February. It's a little bit of Moulin Rouge, Forrest Gump, Ghandi, and Titanic merged into one, with a Beatles soundtrack accompanying. See this film on the big screen before it leaves theaters...it will leave you gasping for air.

The Number 23 (2007)

A below-average, washed-up wannabe psychological horror film

[4/10 · 29 September 2007]

Usually when one comes across this film, their very first initial reaction is "Jim Carrey in a horror movie? Er..." Nevertheless they are still compelled to see it. As was I--but given the absolutely dreadful reviews "The Number 23" reeled in from distinguished film critics, I decided it wasn't worth my time and probably was just another lame excuse for a psychological horror film made in 2007. But today I decided, what the heck--we'll see if it's bad or good, as I paid a rough $4 at the Blockbuster counter to rent it.

The Number 23 is a psychological horror film that deals with a man named Walter Sparrow (Carrey) whose wife gets him an old book entitled "The Number 23," which is about a sketchy detective named Fingerling who had a life filled with tragic loss, false love, murder, and above all, an unnatural obsession with the number 23. As Walter reads the book, he notices more and more striking similarities between him and the character, and it gets to the point where the number 23 becomes his central life figure as well, and slowly he believes he is transforming into the character that he thinks is a paper replica of himself.

Pretty weak storyline, eh? Yeah, I thought so too. Fortunately the film keeps itself on its feet (sort of) through skilled directing and editing, decent acting, an eerie atmosphere, a well-written screenplay, and just the sheer excitement of watching Jim Carrey in a role that is completely polar opposite of Lloyd in "Dumb and Dumber." Some scenes are extremely intense and shocking in a good way, ways that'll make you pull the blanket up to your chin, and eagerly await what happens next.

Other times you just want to go to bed. What is unfortunate about the movie is that the bad far outweighs the good. The decently-structured film is overrun and overkilled by extremely graphic and gratuitous sex scenes (75% of which really weren't necessary), laughably over-dramatic moments, and a ridiculously clichéd, washed-up "twist" that you didn't see coming because it's just so absurd in the first place. Many of the "freaky" references to the number 23 dealing with history are also factually incorrect.

Overall, it is quite obvious this film was a failed attempt at being a remembered Hitchcock-style psychological horror film and while it was an entertaining watch, I can't help but feel cheated out of that $4 I spent today.

I await the next great modern psychological horror film since "Saw."

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

The worst movie I've ever seen. I LOVED IT!!

[5/10 · 3 September 2007]

Seriously, just say the title to yourself. Slowly--one word at a time. Go ahead, no one's watching. Snakes...on...a...plane. Can you do that without laughing? I know I can't.

What started out as an EXPLOSIVE internet phenomenon in spring 2006 became a legend by August. And unless you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half, you'll definitely know something about Snakes On A Plane. When the story surfaced, I thought it was such a genius idea for a brainless summer popcorn movie, became a regular on the IMDb board for a bit, got an official T-Shirt at Hot Topic, and, unfortunately, didn't get a chance to see it when it opened on August 18th. Well, last night I sat down with a friend at 1:30 in the morning with a can of Rockstar, popcorn, and french fries and put the movie on, truly, completely not knowing of what was about to be thrown in my face.

As you can probably imagine, Snakes on a Plane is about...well...snakes on a plane. A teenager witnesses a brutal murder in Honolulu, doesn't do anything, and Samuel L. Jackson as a super-cool FBI agent must escort him to LA to testify. But the murderer wants this witness dead--so he releases deadly snakes on the plane to make sure he dies.

The film is basically made up of people getting killed in the most random and outrageous ways imaginable by this ASTOUNDINGLY unrealistic movie, and Samuel L. Jackson killing the snakes and trying to protect the passengers. Hilarity ensues--I laughed throughout the whole movie. The dialogue is absolutely ridiculous, badly written, super-corny, yet excruciatingly funny. Kenan Thompson portrays a video-game addict passenger who attempts to fly the plane and the whole thing is just really, really funny.

Aside from that, being honest--S.O.A.P is without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever seen. Ever. It has no story, it's extremely corny (even the scenes without the snakes), makes you want to kill yourself, it's terribly acted, and everything else bad you can think of. Yet, there's a little voice inside you protesting, insisting you watch the rest of Samuel L. Jackson beating the crap out of poisonous snakes. While it is the worst movie I've ever seen--I ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT. I know this is an over-used, worn-out expression, but this is really the only film I've ever seen where it 100% applies--Snakes on a Plane is SO bad, it's good. It makes for a fantastic laugh and it's a healthier alternative to drugs to forget all your problems and worries and just enjoy a night of watching snakes kill people on a plane. Overall, the ULTIMATE summer party movie. It's original as hell, side-splittingly funny, and 100% awesome--yet it's also the worst film ever produced.

The only problem is, I have no idea whether I give this movie 10 stars or 0 stars. So I've decided on half and half--a 5.

Just see this movie. SOAP will undoubtedly go down in history as a cult classic.

United 93 (2006)

So well-done, so realistic, so tasteful, so gut-wrenching, so terrifying...it cuts straight to your soul

[10/10 · 31 July 2007]

United 93 was one I skipped over last year. Last year I took the view that any film made so close after 9/11 to be distributed wide in theaters that was about 9/11 was absolutely wrong, exploited Americans, and did not deserve my ticket money. But considering the high success United 93 had, the outstanding reviews it gathered, and its popularity at the Academy Awards, I decided to give this movie a chance at Blockbuster tonight.

I had read all over the place before I watched it that it was an extremely emotionally intense film. I am very attracted to these types of films because many times they cut right to the soul of you and make you wonder how lucky you are. I thought I had seen everything filmmakers had to offer in this genre. I was wrong.

From the very first scene, United 93 reaches out to you and brings you back six years ago to re-witness the terror America went through on the fateful day, September 11th, 2001. In a close-to-real-time manner, we are taken through--from start to finish--the morning that America will never forget.

MANY people still refuse to see this movie and others similar to it because they believe it is wrong to make such a film after the tragedy of 9/11. I can say with full confidence that "United 93" is not a piece of B-movie Hollywood over-dramatic crap set on the day of 9/11 to entertain audiences in a summer popcorn movie. United 93 is extremely tastefully done not to provide entertainment for its viewers...but what it does provide is something much more valuable, and that is terror. From the moment you start watching, you are pulled into your TV screen and experience every single gut-wrenching moment along with the passengers on United Flight 93. As if you were one of the passengers on the plane, you experience every ounce of terror, every single moment of fear, and every single bit of hate for the terrorists hijacking the plane. You are no longer wrapped up in a cozy blanket on your couch with your newly installed HD television set you put it into impress your successful neighbour. You're a passenger on Flight 93.

Paul Greengrass delivers an exquisitely directed film (one of the best direction jobs I have seen in my years as a movie critic) and paired with extraordinarily realistic acting performances by everyone in the film. The film is shot similar to a documentary and it truly makes you feel like you are watching rare camera footage that survived the crash instead of a film made in a studio. Everything about the film is so realistic, I'm actually having trouble calling it a "film" in this review.

Of course, United 93 is not for everyone. It is without a doubt the most emotionally powerful film I have ever watched and quite possibly the most terrifying movie I've ever sat through in all my years of seeing extreme horror films. The violence is extremely strong, very disturbing, and shockingly realistic. There are very few scenes free of peril and sometimes the emotional intensity gets so high you want to turn off the movie. But then you think of the people that really were on that plane--they couldn't just turn off the movie. They had to go keep fighting, and that thought alone will keep you watching.

But even so, this is more than a film showing the absolute terror that went on in the cabin of Flight 93. This is a film that shows true American spirit, and you feel compelled to join the brave men and women who attempt to storm the cockpit. You feel compelled to take up a weapon--which is anything you can find on the plane--and join the attempted take-back of the plane. And even though everyone who watches the film will know the outcome automatically...you still see that last beam of hope inside you. The last beam of hope that maybe, just maybe, these guys can take the terrorists down. Maybe, just maybe, the storm to the cockpit will work. And that's the moment you know that United 93 is more than just a movie...it's a true masterpiece.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

The funniest film in years. Yes, it's THAT good.

[10/10 · 30 July 2007]

It was a day of laughs that started as I patiently waited in line at the concession stand on a hot Monday afternoon ready to watch "The Simpsons Movie." The obese woman standing in front of me dropped her two Value Pepsi drinks on the floor and it got all over her, and the guy behind the snack bar said dully "Thanks for putting this much more excitement into my life" and called for a mop. Because this is exactly something that would happen to me normally, I couldn't help laughing until I took my seat in the theater. Little did I know I was in luck for more.

Seriously, I don't remember the last time I laughed so hard in my life. I have been a die-hard, hardcore, extremely loyal Simpsons fan for most of my life, and there has been nearly no better treat this summer to me than watching America's "first family of comedy" on the big screen. If you're like me, you've probably noticed the last few seasons (ok, more than few, more like eight seasons) of the Simpsons have been less funny, less charming, less witty, etc. Usually whenever someone mentions a good episode of the Simpsons, it's been one of the old episodes from the early 90s. Let me one of many to tell you straight and upfront: the comedy is back. Paired up with hysterical references to the real world, classic spoofs on FOX itself (like the show is famous for), HUGE celebrity cameos (including a very popular rock band that tragically drowns in a river) even making fun of movie theaters and watching a TV show adaptation on the big screen, and even some tear-shedding tragedy--The Simpsons Movie has it all. The answer is finally true to me, and it will be to you after seeing the movie: the reason the recent seasons have been disappointing is because Matt Groening and his team of absolute GENIUSES have been bottling up a storm of side-splitting, spleen-bursting, voice-loosing, eye-tearing, stomach-bleeding, popcorn-crunching gold that would, to our surprise, be unleashed on July 27th, 2007, like a tank of Mentos in an ocean of Diet Coke. Quite simply, the funniest film I've had the pleasure of watching since "Anchorman."

Yes, it's THAT good.

Oh, and there's a lot more to it too. Unfortunately, I can't tell you anymore or else I'll spoil the insanely amazing plot line, or something that goes with it. Just see the movie and you'll be glad you did!

5-Stars (if you're a Simpsons fan) 1 1/2-Stars (if you're with "Family Guy" or "South Park" or those OTHER animated shows) 0-Stars (if you have a bad sense of humour and people have confirmed that fact for you)

Ratatouille (2007)

One of the most original films I've seen in years

[8/10 · 28 July 2007]

I entered the theater for "Ratatouille" hungry. Yeah, my stomach sort of was craving that buttery, salty, hydrogenated fatty taste of popcorn. But aside that--I was hungry for a fantastic animated film that has been absolutely raved upon by distinguished critics and average moviegoers alike. Hungry just like a food critic is about fine French cuisine.

Mmm, and did I leave the theater full of what I wanted (not only the popcorn!) Quite bluntly, "Ratatouille" is one of the most original films I've seen in recent memory, and also one of the best movies so far of 2007.

The film deals with a rat named Remey living in the French suburbs. Remey isn't any ordinary rat...unlike the tastes of garbage which his family and friends crave, Remey wants REAL food...human food, as he initially calls it. When he and his family are kicked out of this quaint town, Remey finds himself in Paris, with a new friend called Linguini, a human, who is the pimply-faced teenaged janitor for a highly regarded classy 5-star French restaurant.

The problem is, Linguini wants to be a chef. And since Remey knows how to cook (and damn well) he teams with Linguini by hiding under his chef hat, controlling his actions (by pulling on his hair) to create the best food in Paris.

Hilarity ensues. Truly, I expected nothing less from master filmmaker Brad Bird, who brought us The Incredibles, and some of the early days of The Simpsons. The directing is very well-done, the screenplay is superior, and the voice talent is absolutely BRILLIANT. Peter O'Toole plays the hungry, evil, most cynical food critic around and executes the role seamlessly (and painfully funny too, if you're familiar with his other work as I am!) Sometimes absolutely hysterical, sometimes the "awwwh" moment of feeling sorry for someone, sometimes downright absurd--like fine food, it's got something for everyone. I saw it with my little brother, who happens to be six years old, and the movie was silly enough to keep him entertained and sophisticated enough to keep me and my dad laughing throughout.

Ratatouille is indeed worth all the hype it's collected in the month it's been released. See it on the big screen before it leaves theaters for good--and then you'll see this one at the Academy Awards!

Saw II (2005)

Absolutely brilliant--can't remember the last time a sequel was this great!

[7/10 · 8 July 2007]

To be completely honest, I had VERY low expectations for Saw 2. I had watched the first film, and LOVED it. I loved how James Wan and Leigh Whannell were able to create such a creepy film with such a simple set. I loved the brilliant psychological warfare between two individuals who start out calm but grow angry with each other soon after. I loved the flashback sequences. Truth be told, I loved everything about it, and I was upset to then learn of three sequels (and probably a fourth) to such a classic horror film.

But anyway, since I had loved the first so much, one day I found myself at Blockbuster and decided to give the sequel a chance. I had nothing else to do. I could barely speak after watching it. I had just walked out of my home theater room with the memory of one of the best and most well-made sequels I've ever had the pleasure of watching.

"Saw 2," quite simply, is basically the first film on steroids. From the very first scene (which, by the way, was so revolting I had to set my giant movie theater butter popcorn bowl on the table next to me) Saw 2 will take your hands and lead you into a world of nightmare that you can't escape from until the end credits arrive on your screen 90 minutes later.

The story is simple to follow yet complex to dive into. Jigsaw locks eight people in a house full of traps, and they have two hours to find a way out before a lethal nerve gas flowing through the house kills them like the EBOLA virus. Meanwhile, Detective Matthews, a cop, apprehends Jigsaw with a team. And, it just so happens, one of the eight trapped in that house is Eric Matthews' son.

Saw 2 has everything the first film had and beyond. The gore is up there as a 9 or 10 on the gore scale, while I'd give the first film maybe a 7. Remember the psychological warfare that ensued between Adam and Lawrence in the first film? Well, it's magnified 100x in "Saw 2," between Jigsaw and Detective Matthews, and the eight unlucky individuals trapped inside the house. The acting is incredibly top-rate and soars past the first film in acting talent. Everyone in the cast does a GREAT job and makes the film seem that much more realistic. The direction and editing is superb (better than the first) and we now seriously know Leigh Whannell can seriously write a damn good movie, even though the screenplay for the first film was better. Apart from that, the only complaints I could have for "Saw 2" is that it isn't as creative or inventive as the first was, but who says it has to be? It's a sequel--it is merely carrying on the story where the first left off. The second complaint would be that it isn't scary...at all. It's just a brilliant suspense film that will have you cringe in disgust at the deliciously cleverly twisted film before your eyes. And for me, that's enough.

The twist at the end is also one of the biggest shockers I've ever witnessed watching a film. You think the one at the end of "Saw 1" is big? You ain't seen nothing yet. And go ahead--keep trying to guess the ending throughout watching "Saw 2." I guarantee you it'll go in the exact opposite direction of what you're thinking of.

Overall--do what your love for the first film tells you to do. See "Saw 2," disregard your thoughts of how a sequel could never be as great as the first, sit down, and put this movie on. You won't be disappointed! My only worry now is the third film possibly living up to the caliber of the first two. Leigh Whannell and James Wan prove that "Saw" is not one horror film saga for recent years, it's one for the century.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Rather overrated, but still a good film

[6/10 · 7 July 2007]

Every once and a while, and sometimes even more often than that, there comes a film that critics practically drool over. Erupting headlines shoot like geysers from The New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, and IMDb. I get excited when there's a film like this, because I'm excited to see it and get my own opinions on it. Unfortunately, many times, I don't exactly like the film. For 2004, that film is Million Dollar Baby.

Hilary Swank plays Maggie Fitzgerald, a southern 31-year-old from Missouri who has come from a broken home, and has one dream: to win the title of a boxing championship. Clint Eastwood plays Frankie Dunn, the acclaimed boxing manager. "I don't train girls," is Dunn's immediate reflex once Maggie asks him to train her. Eventually, Dunn takes her as a trainee and eventually manages her boxing career, and the two of them begin an extremely strong, non-romantic emotional bond as Maggie advances towards her dream.

Of course, there's more complex elements to the story than that, but really, that's it in a nutshell. For some reason, I believe that the all-star cast (Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman) helped bring this mediocre film to it's blockbuster status, and also helped it go on to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Yes, you'll hear critics say it's "Remarkable" and "The best film of the year" but none of them will ever say "Unique." Quite simply, because, there is nothing original about this film at all. There are so many films about someone going after their dreams I've lost count, and frankly, most of them are better and less appreciated than Million Dollar Baby.

Of course, there are some huge highpoints this film has hit. One--Clint Eastwood really was the right choice for director. He did a superb job with the film, made it detailed without making it boring, and made it an easier film to watch without having to concentrate super-hard like you're taking the SATs in high school. Two--Paul Haggis's incredibly talented writing skills shine through like rays of sun through a thin white bed sheet in this film. It's not so much that the screenplay was original, funny, and creative like the Oscar-winning one of Little Miss Sunshine, but it was so extraordinarily well written and the dialogue is extremely realistic. Three--astounding performances by Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman (in my opinion, ALL of them worthy of Oscars) bring the film to its feet. Mixed with Paul Haggis's exquisitely written screenplay, it's almost like you're watching a documentary. And in no way is that a bad thing! Now we'll go back to the negative points for a bit. My least favourite thing about Million Dollar Baby is the ending. I can't really say much without ruining the film for you, but it was evident they were going for a very emotional and hard-hitting ending. Unfortunately, I didn't feel it. I get very emotional at sad films and am considered a rather emotional person, but the ending felt very rushed, overworked, and sloppily done. If they had spent another few weeks working on the ending, the ending alone would have made this film a classic.

Overall--don't get me wrong. This is a GOOD film. It's just very overrated, and in my opinion, isn't deserving of all people say it's cut out to be. And definitely not worthy of the Best Picture Oscar.

Sicko (2007)

Depressingly truthful -- one of the most important films of the last five years

[9/10 · 4 July 2007]

First of all, let me just say that I am 13 years old. Yet, this does not mean that I am so ignorant as to not know what goes on in the business of healthcare. I stay on top of political issues, and I read the news regularly to see what's going on in our world.

So, naturally, I've grown accustomed to Michael Moore's ideas and, when I heard of his new film "Sicko" that would exploit everything wrong with America's healthcare system, I got excited.

I saw Sicko last night and let me say right now that it does not disappoint. Michael Moore has created a painfully truthful documentary that seriously opens your eyes to yet another thing America lacks: true care for people who are sick and can't afford it. Moore takes us on a 2 hour long trip interviewing people and discovering their horror stories about their health insurance companies refusing to cover their necessary health expenses, and for incredibly shallow reasons.

Now hang on a second. Don't we already know all this? The answer is yes. But Michael Moore takes everything we know and magnifies it 100x so we can view it in full spectrum. The result is clear: depression about how awful our country, the land of the free and home of the brave, is on healthcare.

Next, Moore takes us along on journeys to Canada, the UK, France, and even Cuba to show us how amazing their healthcare is. Moore talks to the locals to find out their stories and then compares them in full force to the horrifying tales of injured and/or sick Americans who don't have--or can't reason with--health insurance.

The painfully truthful documentary is accompanied by Moore's special, dry, tongue-in-cheek humour that we know so well from his other films. You'll be laughing at one moment, and the next moment staring in absolute sheer horror at what is being exploited right before our eyes.

Whether you are young, old, sick, healthy, with health insurance, or without health insurance, Sicko is definitely worth the high admission prices we pay these days for the movies. See this film, in no way will you be disappointed.

Saw (2004)

Brilliantly sick and twisted...if you can stomach it!

[10/10 · 20 June 2007]

After countless raves from nearly every one of my horror film loving friends, I decided one day it was time for me to watch "Saw," an indie slasher film premiering at the Sundance Film Festival as one of the "Midnight Movies" that is widely considered one of the greatest horror films of its generation. In no way does this film disappoint, no matter what you are looking for in a film.

Let's start with the story. Two young men--a doctor named Dr. Gordon, and a photographer named Adam--wake up chained to the wall in a dirty, old washroom. Neither of them know how they got there--and they don't know each other either. There is a slaughtered corpse between them eerily clutching a tape recorder and two tapes addressed to each of the men. The message is clear: one must find a way to kill the other by 6:00 that evening or they will both--along with Dr. Gordon's family--be killed.

Before long, they realize they are now victims of the Jigsaw killer--a known serial killer who captures people who do not appreciate life and force them to hurt themselves or others in order to save themselves from a bloody, gruesome, brutal, torturous death. In a series of flashbacks, we discover more about Jigsaw, and experience previous encounters his victims' have had. We learn of Gordon and Adam's past, an obsessed detective dedicated to finding Jigsaw, and a young drug addict named Amanda who survived Jigsaw's sick "games" and is now mentally scarred. As the story unfolds, it suddenly explodes into a brilliantly twisted psychological thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the credits roll after the shock ending and even for some time after that. Lots of hardcore gore and an INCREDIBLY SCARY atmosphere accompany this much-above-average slasher flick.

The acting is both great and dreadful at different times, but is always thoroughly realistic. Jigsaw is perfectly cast in his role. Adam was sort of an annoying character, but still managed to deliver, and Dr. Gordon seemed like some WAY over-dramatic guy out of Star Trek, and was the only character in the small cast I was actually hoping to get killed.

The directing and editing is absolutely nothing to rave about and is solely why I didn't give Saw 5 stars. The flashbacks are adequately done, sometimes poorly, but unfortunately, for a super psychological horror film like Saw, that is a huge failure and deserves negative feedback. Very fortunately, the strong storyline and sheer terrifying simple atmosphere holds the film together.

Overall--a very enjoyable movie watching experience, and it will scare the living daylights out of you if you watch it alone on a big screen with surround sound. Not one for the little kids however, as it is very violent in some select scenes (particularly the ending) but that shouldn't keep you from seeing it. Very good and much, much more and above and ultimately smarter and more brilliant the average super-violent slasher horror films that are out there today.

Flushed Away (2006)

An odd, cute, and fun film for a rainy day

[6/10 · 7 June 2007]

OK...er...bear with me people.

I never planned on seeing this movie. I hate these overdone CGI animal adventure movies. Doogal. Barnyard. Over the flippin' hedge. Happy Feet (though that one was OK). Besides crappy romantic comedies, they're the most overdone film genre of all-time.

But, as it so happens, I found myself on a bus to Six Flags in Massachusetts one day as part of a college reunion my dad was in (there was a program for the kids, and our group, age 15-17, was going to Six Flags one day), and they were showing this film, "Flushed Away," on the bus.

Meh. I had nothing better to do. Sleep? I just woke up like a minute and a half ago, it was 9:00 in the morning. Study for my exam I was taking off-campus on Saturday? Yeah, right. Watch "Flushed Away" for no apparent reason whatsoever? Sounds like a plan! OK, so basically, "Flushed Away" is about this lonely (but almost scarily elated) rat named Roddy who gets flushed down the loo one day and discovers a huge underworld city in the sewers of London where other rats live. He meets this girl scavenger rat named Rita who looks for treasures in the sewers and he keeps ruining things for her on her boat...thus Rita gets a huge sense of resentment for this poor rat. Roddy needs to get back to Kensington (hehe, I love that place) where he lives...but has no plan of doing so. Rita just so happens to have a dilemma as well: she has this quarrel with a big toad named...er...the Toad who stole a ruby from her that was going to make her poor family wealthy again. Roddy agrees to help Rita get the ruby back in return for her help in getting him back to the land "up top." (Kensington) As you can see from my basic plot summary, "Flushed Away" is an odd film. It has some fantastic voice talent, though, starring Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen, and Bill Nighy. It also is pretty funny with tons of British humour (oh, did I mention the evil Toad is trying to rig all the toilets in London to suck the people in during the half-time break at the World Cup? hehe ) and it reminded me immensely of Nick Park's brilliant "Wallace and Grommit" series. There are references to tons of other adult movies that only we would get. The soundtrack is fantastic as well with some very good tunes, including a track by The Dandy Warhols.

Overall--funny, entertaining, and enjoyable, but probably not worth seeing again. It kind of struck me as one of the kids' animated films that didn't exactly work for me, and (most of them) usually do. OK for casual viewing...I wouldn't get it on DVD or spend too much money tracking it down.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

The first movie I ever walked out of.

[1/10 · 1 June 2007]

When I think back to May 18th when I first saw "Shrek The Third," I laugh at myself for thinking there couldn't be another worse film made in 2007. Well tonight I was shut up, speechless, and left baffled as I took my seat at the 7:00 showing of "Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End." I will honestly tell you I only saw the first two hours of the film. At 9:00 I grabbed my value Pepsi and practically ran out the theater door, eager to escape the hell I had so innocently trapped myself in on a valuable Friday night.

There are so many things wrong with this film I don't even know where to start. Just like the third Shrek installment, POTC 3 has lost all--and I mean all--of its charm and has now turned into a 3 hour soul-less bloodthirsty action movie with no character development, horrible acting, very few charming Jack Sparrow moments, and just a bunch of angry sea creature pirates eating each other's heads and stabbing swords through other unlucky pirates' torsos.

The acting was absolutely horrid. Orlando Bloom is in his worst role of his career and gives a painfully annoying performance as Will Turner. Kiera Knightley, an actress who I usually adore watching on screen, was also surprisingly below average and left me wondering what the hell went wrong on the set of this movie. Even veterans Johnny Depp, Bill Nighy, and Geoffrey Rush seemed bored by the whole thing, like they knew the movie sucked but also their contracts with their signatures on it kept them from ducking out of the project.

There's too much CGI. WAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much CGI. Part of the reason I loved the first film so much was because it was reasonably realistic, no huge sea creatures, no hammerhead shark pirates, no strange women growing 10000x their size, roaring like some guy from a death metal band, and then falling apart into crabs. There was no unnecessary CGI. The third film excels at this, and it almost felt like I was watching a Star Wars film. Unfortunately, the excess CGI takes away from the backbone of the film, and is obviously a huge weight on the film that only attributes to it's faceplant into the ground.

Gore Verbinski really is starting to lose his magic as well. He did an EXCELLENT job directing the first film, and did a pretty good job with the direction of the second film. Why, now, does he deliver a terribly amateurish directing job in the third film? It was almost as bad as the direction in Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers." The storyline is ridiculously stupid and stupidly hollow, incredibly and overly complex for a fun popcorn movie like this, and Verbinski tries to balance three separate story lines on one plate and ends up dropping the dishes, spoiling the food, and leaving the viewer hungry.

I could really go on and on about what a gigantic waste of time and money this film is, but a movie like this doesn't deserve such a long review. Really, it's a shame Hollywood relies on sequels to big moneymaking blockbusters to rake in the cash these days. Thank God for indie cinema. Save your money and rent the first instead, which is actually a 9 or 10 in my book.

Shrek the Third (2007)

A funny movie that is lacking something monstrously important to be a true "Shrek" film

[3/10 · 18 May 2007]

I got out of classes this fine Friday for some special school occasion, so the entire middle school went over to the movie theater to see Shrek The Third at a discovered matinée showtime at the local theater. A week ago, when the faculty first announced we'd be seeing this instead of Spider-Man 3, I was pretty excited. I mean, come on, it's Shrek--you really can't go wrong with the charming, funny, brainy-as-hell movies coming out of Dreamworks, with voice talent by Eddie Murphey, Mike Myers, and Cameron Diaz...right? Wrong. Let's start by examining what Shrek The Third DIDN'T have. The first "Shrek" was loved by me--and pretty much every other Shrek fan who is mature enough to understand its witty humour, special heartwarming touch, and its meant-for-adults-that-goes-way-over-little-kids'-heads type content. The filmmakers of the first Shrek really had some awesome material up their sleeves--stuff that truly made a fantastic movie, and if I do say so myself, one of the best animated films ever to be pumped out of LA.

The second Shrek, "Shrek 2," was a slight decline in entertainment. It was still funny, and still had half a tank of movie magic gasoline--not a full tank like the first Shrek possessed, but half--good enough to make a decent and enjoyable film, but not nearly enough to quite match up to the original.

And now, sure enough, as every successful movie must have, a second sequel. "Shrek The Third" is a complete and utter mess. Remember those special little tricks the filmmakers had up their sleeves for the first Shrek, and even some for the second Shrek? Well, they're all GONE--not missing, no, they're completely GONE. What made the first two movies enjoyable for me had completely been used up, proving to us moviegoers and critics that sequels to big blockbusters are gigantic wastes of money.

Sure, it was FUNNY. It was really funny, I laughed a lot. But where was the brain behind the comedy? Where was the backbone, the spine, the rock where instead of St. Peter builds the Church, where the filmmaker is supposed to base the movie on, where was that? It wasn't there--it was like the filmmakers pretended it was there, when it really wasn't, and just ignored that fact and continued to make the movie with no worries. A "ghost comedy" I like to call it. Now I know what you're asking yourself--how could I enjoy a "ghost comedy" like "Anchorman," but not this? Well, this leaves me into my next point.

The direction of the movie was an embarrassingly bad joke. It was like the director was sitting back smoking bongs and drinking Guinness while the sound editors filled in for him. The story didn't flow like the first two, it wasn't interesting, and after a while, I just got bored with the whole thing and started thinking about other, more important aspects of my life. The storyline felt like the film caterer used a knife to chop up it into little bits of segments and then mixed them around, making the movie almost as pointless as "Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector." A stupid comedy that is directed well can be a VERY FUNNY AND ENJOYABLE FILM. But when it's not? The essence of the film drains away to leave just empty-hearted and hollow laughs that don't mean anything.

AND THE ENDING! OH GOD, THE ENDING! What were they thinking?! I was pretty much asleep! They tried to make it funny and give the audience the warm fuzzy feeling they felt in the first two movies, and they failed miserably! It was almost like they tried to justify the crappiness of the rest of the movie with a satisfying finale, and ended up doing the opposite and making the rest of the movie even crappier than it was. Which is truly saying something.

Overall, "Shrek The Third" got me out of class, and that really was the only good part about seeing it. A huge, and unfortunate, disappointment. Save your money and rent the first two. I hope there's no "Shrek The Fourth."

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Well...er...I liked it!

[7/10 · 5 May 2007]

This is going to be a difficult review to write, but I shall try my best. I waited for Spidey 3 for a hell of a long time. Long, long time. I bought my tickets to see it in IMAX two and a half weeks before it opened. Slowly and even more slowly, the weeks went by alongside tons of schoolwork that only led me closer to the anticipated night.

Well, it's half past midnight and I just got home from seeing it. First of all, let's look at the good side of the movie. The special effects were ASTOUNDING. They were incredibly realistic (even if it IS a comic book movie!) and experiencing the amazingly choreographed fight scenes in IMAX was well worth the extra five bucks per ticket. Sam Raimi's directing has also greatly improved, as he was able to balance somewhat of a minor interlocking storyline between three villains and still manage to keep the movie on its feet. I felt the length of the movie (roughly 2 1/2 hours) was perfect--long enough to keep you entertained, and short enough to keep you from not going bored out of your mind. Raimi and the writers even pack some HYSTERICAL humour into the film, with a classic cameo from Bruce Campbell as the Maitre'd of a French restaurant, plus many other laugh-out-loud hilarious scenes. Plus, my favorite part of the good points, is that Spider-Man 3 is a fun, fun, FUN popcorn movie. Lots of fun. Sometimes you look up at the screen and wonder "what in the hell was that?" But it's all good, cause overall, it's lots of fun and you end up not caring if the story makes sense or not. (It does, don't worry) The storyline is much more darker, complex, and mature than the first two movies, and it doesn't seem "Spider-Man" ish, which a lot of people were definitely NOT expecting. I think this is why a lot of people didn't like it. Now the iffy parts. The acting was OK. Yes, just OK. Not good, DEFINITELY not great--just OK. Tobey Maguire had me believing that he had improved from Spider-Man 2 but when we got to the scene with him and MJ on the bridge--oh my, the entire audience was gasping for air because we were all laughing so hard at his terrible fake-crying. Kirstin Dunst's acting skills never really annoy me; I think she's a great actress and while she's certainly not as good as many other actresses in Hollywood, she does a fine "B" job in Spider-Man 3 that works for the movie. I felt James Franco needed some variety, though, as throughout all three Spider-Man films he seems to be acting the same. And, surprisingly, Topher Grace was a lot of fun to watch! It'll be hard to watch That 70s Show again without thinking of Venom! Yet, out of all the performances, Thomas Haden Church comes out on top with a very serious portrayal of Sandman. He blew me away! (pun intended!) I didn't have a huge problem with the corniness of the movie. Yes, I know, the scene with Peter going emo and then gyrating his hips in front of a suit store had me raising my eyebrows, but it was a funny element to the storyline. Sure, we could've done without it, but they got some laughs and that's what counts. There were one or two scenes (particularly MJ and Peter on the bridge) that made me want to get up and leave, but they're over quickly.

The part that bothered me the most, though, is that the "strange black entity" that bonds with Peter--the symbiote--had no real significance in the story whatsoever. It kinda just...happened. There was no backbone to the symbiote story, nothing about it was explained at all, and it just kinda attached itself to Peter's motorbike and then possessed him. It felt very random and, even though it was the whole movie storyline, very out-of-place. This bothered me a LOT.

Overall: worth the trip, and if you get a chance, see it in IMAX. It's FAR from great, but it's a good film, and I liked it better than the first Spider-Man. A very nice kick-off to the summer movie season. Well done, Mr. Raimi!

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

A beautiful uplifting film about the power of the human spirit

[8/10 · 8 April 2007]

I was really mad last winter, when the Pursuit of Happiness was released in theaters and my busy schedule kept me from taking a trip to the cinema to see it. Well one day in browsing Blockbuster I realized it had come out on DVD, so I take it home with me.

It was a 2-day rental. I still haven't given it back.

Inspired by a true story, Will Smith stars as Chris Gardner, the poor salesman who has a problem with parking tickets and paying rent. He's a very smart guy, though, as he is able to complete a Rubik's Cube in only a few minutes...talk about skilled! He has a son, Christopher, who he had with his girlfriend who leaves him towards the beginning of the movie. Chris applies for an internship as a stock broker in hope that he will be able to produce the money to provide a better living atmosphere for he and his son.

Will Smith has never given a finer performance. As a Hollywood multi-million dollar actor, the way he is able to portray a poor man in such a realistic way is beyond me. Little Jaden Smith (Will's son) does a surprisingly amazing job as Chris's son.

But, in my opinion, the best part about this movie is the message: "If you want something, go get it. Period." I couldn't agree with this statement more, and the true story of Chris Gardner proves it. Also, as American citizens, the Declaration of Independence says that we are entitled to the privileges of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The PURSUIT of happiness...it's like happiness is something we can never gain...only pursue.

Highly recommended. Two hours well-spent in front of my TV.

Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny (2006)

Outrageously funny, incredibly stupid, and astoundingly addicting

[9/10 · 21 March 2007]

For some reason, I am a huge fan of Jack Black but have never heard of the band Tenacious D. I thought because of this I wouldn't really enjoy the movie and the jokes would fly over my head. So I didn't see it in theaters even though my friend said it was hysterical. Well on a Virgin Atlantic flight back from London it was showing on-demand and I decided to give it a whirl. Besides, what else was I going to do for eight hours? From the opening scene I was tapping my foot to the hard-rocking acoustic metal sounds of Jack Black and Kyle Gass in the classic song "Kickapoo." Already I was enjoying it, and I was ready for more of a good movie to make me laugh.

Tenacious D did more than just make me laugh--it made me want to spend hundreds of dollars to see this amazing band in concert. It made me want to learn all the songs on guitar and play them. It made me laugh HARD (especially the scene where JB gets high on shrooms, absolutely classic!) at the essence of stupid humor, the type of humor that takes a two-year-old's brain to comprehend but a master filmmaker to craft into a good movie. They did it with Dumb and Dumber. They did it with Anchorman. And now they've done it with Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny. Not only that--I can't stop watching the damn film! I found it on the Amazon marketplace for $10 and spend hours extracting $10 in coins lying on my closet floor. Oh, man, owning this movie was totally worth spending that hour kneeling down in my closet.

The storyline's absolutely ridiculous. But for some reason you appreciate JB and KG's majestic quest to acquire the Pick of Destiny, a magical guitar pick that came from Satan's chipped tooth itself. In fact--this movie is almost like a reincarnation of This Is Spinal Tap--it rocks out HARD, makes you laugh, make you gasp in shock, and makes fun of rock music in special, intimate ways. In Tenacious D, it's a bunch of funny Satanic imagery.

This is a movie not to be missed by any fan of stupid humor movies, Jack Black, the band Tenacious D, or anyone who likes to ROCK. Highly recommended.

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Well, it wasn't BAD...

[6/10 · 21 March 2007]

I watched The Devil Wears Prada on a flight from London to Newark last week. I had decided to watch it because I had heard Meryl Streep gave a very good performance in it (hey, it got her nominated for an Oscar after all) and both my mom and my sister really liked it. Yes, I know what you're thinking right now--what I was doing, trusting my mom and sister on a movie about fashion? Well, truthfully, I didn't know what myself I was doing.

It's a good movie. It's anything but great. The acting is a huge highpoint, though, I can't think of one actor or actress in the movie who didn't do a terrific job. I remember seeing Anne Hathaway in her premiere film role, The Princess Diaries, a million and one years ago. I hadn't seen her act on screen since so that was kind of fun. Meryl Streep definitely deserved her Oscar nomination, and Stanley Tucci never fails to amaze me.

Well, I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm a guy, I'm not into fashion at all, and I believe one should just wear whatever the hell they want and not care what they look like. Seriously. But anyway, it's a fun movie and it teaches a good lesson, that there's more to a person than the outside. Good, not great.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

You won't believe your eyes...

[10/10 · 12 March 2007]

Nobody likes Harold Crick.

Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is an IRS agent who is a genius at math. If someone shoots two numbers at them, he will multiply them instantly with the correct answer. He has a wristwatch that he depends on everything for. He wakes up, gets on the bus to go to work, and falls asleep all at precise times down to the second that if he misses, his day will be forever messed up. His schedule repeats every single day of his life. Oh yeah, and Harold hears voices too. It's almost as like someone is narrating his dull life...not telling him what will happen, but what already happened. This voice comes and goes at seemingly random times. One day Harold is re-setting his wristwatch after it randomly shut off while waiting for the bus when the voice says "Little did he know, this simply seeming innocent act would result in his imminent death." When Harold hears this, he begins to fear his death obsessively. But he is not sure what to do.

It turns out the voice is real. It is the voice of author Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson) who has a bad case of writer's block and a heavy addiction to smoking. She is writing a new novel about an IRS agent named Harold Crick who is very good with numbers. Little did SHE know, Harold Crick was a real person, and just by writing the book, she was controlling his life. Oh yeah, and she wanted to kill off Harold in the book at the end. Fortunately, her writer's block makes the voices Harold hear go away temporarily, and he lives his life in his control. This drives her to hire the expert writer's assistant Penny Escher (Queen Latifah) who vows to help her finish the book and kill Harold Crick.

Harold sees a psychiatrist who recommends him to the acclaimed English literature expert Jules Hibbert (Dustin Hoffman). Together, they try to find out if this voice--who they don't know is a real author writing a real book about Harold--is trying to write a comedy, or a tragedy. So Harold begins to keep track of issues in his life to find out. In the meantime, Harold falls helplessly in love with a young woman who works at a bakery (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who he just happens to be auditing. As you can probably guess, issues revolving around that ended up around the "tragedy" column.

Stranger Than Fiction is by far one of the best films of 2006, and I think Will Ferrell's best film yet. The acting is phenomenal: Will Ferrell is in his best role EVER. Emma Thompson is spectacular and soars above many of her other roles in her incredibly realistic portrayal of an author with writer's block. Maggie Gyllenhaal and legend Dustin Hoffman do a fantastic job as well.

Stranger Than Fiction has one of the most unique stories I've ever seen, if not THE most unique. I was SHOCKED after watching this to know this was completely ignored by the Academy, including a Best Original Screenplay award that would've totally locked sabers with Little Miss Sunshine. Hell, this is one of the most original screenplays I've ever had the pleasure of watching. You won't believe your eyes and ears that someone can actually write a movie like this. I'd say underrated with a capital U.

There's not much more I can say except RENT THIS MOVIE NOW. A film like this simply cannot be missed out on. You will not be disappointed.

Glory (1989)

This is the definition of a truly great war movie.

[10/10 · 9 March 2007]

To be quite honest, I had low expectations for "Glory." It was just another boring day at school sitting in my history class drawing random drawings in my notebook. Suddenly my teacher says we're going to watch a movie. I wake up from my dreamy state and I decide I'll give it a chance. He loads the VCR tape into the machine and I fix my eyes upon the screen.

I will put "Glory" into a few words--this is what every war movie strives to be and beyond. Glory tells the story of a Civil War colonel (Matthew Broderick) who leads the war's first all-black volunteer regimen into battles and discovers along the way he has to confront the moral question of racial prejudice within, and outside of, his regimen.

So as I'm sitting in history class watching "Glory," I immediately begin to perk up. From the explosive first scene, I was fully awake. My luck skyrocketed when I discovered two of my all-time favorite actors in the film, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. The movie progressed and I found myself becoming yet more and more drawn into the film--not just watching it, but actually EXPERIENCING every ounce of war, prejudice, and moral questions that face the characters in the movie.

What's even more, is that you find yourself becoming attached to ALL of the characters--every single black soldier--in some strange way, so strange, that when these men fall in battle you feel a jolt of power inside of you that is converted to emotional sadness in your mind.

The final scenes in Glory are mesmerizing. No, more than that--utterly spectacular. The final battle scene at Fort Wagner is so amazingly shot you will think you're actually there fighting along with the black regimen. You're not in your seat watching the film--you feel like you're there! The final battle scene is so spectacular, it will easily remain one of the most memorable battle scenes I've ever witnessed in all of film. After watching Glory, you will find yourself truly moved in all ways possible. You will almost feel like a new person.

All of this paired with a beautiful score by James Horner, Glory is simply one of the best war movies of all-time. Anyone who misses this film is missing out one of the most powerful, moving, and memorable experiences a movie can bring you.

I'm so glad I found myself in history this year.

I Am Sam (2001)

The Greatest Film I've Ever Seen

[10/10 · 25 February 2007]

I Am Sam is one of, if not the best, motion picture of all time.

I Am Sam is about a retarded man named Sam (Sean Penn) who has a mental capacity of a 7-year old. He works as a server at Starbucks, is obsessed with The Beatles, and loves IHOP. After he accidentally has a daughter (Dakota Fanning) with a homeless woman who he names after the song Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds. The woman leaves him, and Sam is left to care for Lucy by himself. However, when Lucy intentionally begins to hold back in school to prevent becoming smarter from her father, child protective services takes her away and Sam must fight to obtain custody. He befriends a lawyer, Rita (Michelle Pfeiffer) with a bad marriage and a son who she thinks hates her. Together, Sam and Rita fight for Lucy's custody in a heartwrenching roller coaster of tears, laughs, and the overwhelming power of human spirit.

This is all beside some of the most stunning performances I've ever seen in a film. Sean Penn is top of his game and gives an amazingly realistic performance as a disabled man without a single flaw. To this day it makes me furious he didn't win the Oscar. Dakota Fanning's premiere role is by far her greatest ever, and at only six years old opened the eyes of actresses who've been in the business for years and basically screamed into their faces "This is how acting is done." And Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a phenomenal, incredibly realistic performance that will absolutely take your breath away.

As the film progresses, you will find yourself laughing one minute, crying the next (you WILL cry no matter how mature or old you are, so make sure you have tissues), the next moment tapping your foot along to the familiar Beatles tunes found throughout the movie (even though they're covers) and the next moment simply staring at the screen not believing your eyes and ears at how emotionally powerful a film can be.

And after watching, you won't want to ever give the DVD back to Blockbuster. If you don't at least give this movie a chance, you will truly be missing out on one of the shiniest gems of modern cinema ever.