Lady-of-Rohan Reviews

Ed Wood (1994)

Sympathy for the devil of film-making

[21 April 2007]

In what is personally one of my favorite films of all time, director Tim Burton gives us the true story of the one often named the worst director of all time; Edward D Wood Jr (Johnny Depp). Passionate about film-making but incompetent at the skill, Ed frantically scurries around Hollywood with cap in hand to seek film companies willing to finance his dead-in-the-water productions. With the help of the down-and-out horror movie icon Bela Lugosi (brilliant performance by Martin Landau) and a reluctant team of showbiz misfits, Ed creates the cinematic anti-masterpieces of his own desire. Undaunted by the cutthroat criticism of the film industry, Ed stumbles on with his passion, door knocking for funds, facing rejection, tragedy, and heartbreak, all leading to the creation of his most infamous motion picture...

Compelling, engaging, and frequently hilarious, "Ed Wood" has an all-star cast providing brilliant performances from Johnny Depp, Martin Landau, Bill Murray, and others. By being filmed in black and white, the movie is able to accomplish the nostalgic effect that is critical in emphasizing the heart of the B-Movie era of the 1950s. One of the central questions which the film raises is if Ed Wood was truly the worst the directer of all time. Many understandably think so due to his incompetent directing skills, penniless budgets, and "the-first-take-is-perfect" philosophy. However, with this film, it's almost impossible not to have sympathy for the devil of film-making. Ed really was passionate about film-making and really didn't care about the scathing reviews or cardboard sets, because, as he says in the film, "movies are about the big picture".

To understand the hilarity of the film, I would personally recommend watching "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and other Ed Wood films before enjoying this to truly appreciate the inside jokes. "Ed Wood" really is a cinematic treat and is the best movie about the worst that cinema has to offer.

10/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

A great ride but with flashes of disappointing deja vu.

[6 July 2006]

"Dead Man's Chest" is one of my most anticipated films of the year. Ever since I saw the first one on a hot July day in 03, I was completely blown away. Well, three years later, "POTC: Dead Man's Chest" has finally arrived into the hungry hands of pirate fans worldwide.

To start off, "Dead Man's Chest" stars all of the familiar faces we all know and love from the first installment. Orlando Bloom, Kiera Knightly, Jack Davenport, and all the rest are back in their usual roles. Johnny Depp, as the hilarious Captain Jack Sparrow, is once again comic dynamite and captures the audiences imagination brilliantly (by the way, he once again has a great entrance). Some of Johnny's best scenes involve him escaping in some way and because of that, the audience I was with was constantly laughing.

For those who enjoyed the quirkiness of "Curse of the Black Pearl", you'll definitely appreciate the "non-serious" feel of this film. In fact, "Dead Man's Chest" takes itself even less seriously than it predecessor. This is due to the over the top stunts, slap-stick comedy, and a plot which is even more supernatural than before.

One of the problems that "Dead Man's Chest" has is that it recycles a lot of the jokes from the first film. Thus, this installment feels like a bit of a retread, despite the fact that this film features an entirely different plot. The ending is a major cliffhanger and definitely builds immense excitement for the third film. "Dead Man's Chest" purposely answered little questions about the plot (much to the frustration of the audience). Because it didn't answer a lot of questions, I'm not entirely raving this film. I'm well aware there is a third film after this but during a two and a half hour movie, audience's want answers to some of the burning questions in the plot. "Dead Man's Chest" is silent on this issue.

Overall, "Dead Man's Chest" is an enjoyable, and decent romp but is a bit too over-the-top for it's own good. In my opinion, I preferred it's predecessor where the plot was much simpler and the laughs wonderfully original. If your a fan of Johnny Depp or Pirates, this is naturally a must see. I'm just not sure if it's entirely worth a second viewing at the theatre.

7/10

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Da Vinci doesn't da liver

[19 May 2006]

Oh dear. What happened?

Phenomenally successful book turned into a big budget treasure hunt with absurd conspiracy stories that border on retarded.

No, it really isn't that good, and my audience made that known. People leaving looked underwhelmed and confused. One guy yelled out to his mate on the other side of the hall, "It ain't good, eh mate?". He agreed. It doesn't take Robert Langdon to figure out that it's not a good sign when audience members complain audibly about the film the moment it ends.

Cast wise, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou make a great team but the absurd plot obviously kept them from reaching their full potential. It didn't help that they were being dictated by a wooden script that didn't even know what to do with itself. As being the blast of fresh air that he always is, Ian McKellen saves the film. His soothing deep voice was definitely comforting and helped to reassure me that the creators of this film wern't completely brain dead. His presence really is wonderful and I was so grateful to see a great actor grace the screen.

On to bad things. The meaningless flashbacks really REALLY got on my nerves, especially how they just pop out of ordinary situations, and had that weird dreamy sense to them. The almost countless conspiracy theories of Opus Dei got so numerous I practically gave up 3/4 into the film. In the end, I gave up on trying to make sense of it and accepted it for being what it is: fiction.

Overall, to put it in short terms, The Da Vinci Code is way too outrageous to be taken seriously. I want to like the film but it's just not going for me.

Save your money this weekend and stay in with a rental and a curry.

6/10

Crossroads (I) (2002)

I've seen a lot better, but I've also seen a LOT worse...

[8 January 2006]

Musicians trying to act in movies is nothing new. Madonna did it, Justin Guarinni did it, Kelly Clarkson did it, and most famously, Jennifer Lopez did it. In 2002, Britney Spears became yet another unfortunate statistic to the sad and growing tally of can't-act singers. Mauled by critics, "Crossroads" became a box office disappointment, and finally showed the world that an Oscar is nowhere in the near future for Mrs. Spears.

"Crossroads" is definitely a stinker. The plot is so indescribably simplistic that a 6yr old could follow it. The element of Britney's character finding and confronting her AWOL mother is disastrously underdone. At other times, the acting is downright ridiculous and has some of the most uninspired direction I've ever seen (closeup, medium shot, closeup, medium shot, repeat 500 times).

Judging from the lead actress, "Crossroads" is a film aimed at the preteen crowd so naturally it should have content which is suitable for that age group. So you can imagine how shocked I was at the whole plot line of Lucy trying to loose her virginity to some loser, the saga of her friend being raped by her other friend's fiancé, who gets pregnant, and then has a miscarriage by taking a header down a flight of stairs! Yes, this is all in the movie, folks!

However, those saying it's the worst film of all time have really got to see more movies. This is because "Crossroads" is mildly amusing to follow despite it's Goliath sized flaws. I do admit I have a soft spot for the road trip genre, and the quirkiness of several characters and their offbeat adventures kept me somewhat entertained in a vanilla state. But despite this, Crossroads is not worth the DVD price. You're much better off using that money to see a better film currently in theatres.

So next time you visit your local video rental place, I advise you skip this one. It's simple, and poorly made so it's really not worth your time. If it happens to be on cable, you might be amused but I'm sure you'll find yourself changing the channel not long after it starts. 4/10

King Kong (2005)

This king deserves a crown

[14 December 2005]

Two years after releasing his previous film Return of the King, Peter Jackson went back to his roots and decided to produce the movie that sparked his initial interest in film: King Kong. Yes, Peter Jackson is back with more monsters, more action, another lengthy movie, and a surefire Oscar contender. (And he lost weight. You look great, man!)

Those who are daunted by the three hour length will need not to worry. While the first hour may be a bit draggish, the second and third acts are absolutely fantastic. Not only do they contain some of the best CGI ever produced but it's the most fun and exciting time I've spent in a theatre this year. For the entire length of the film, you're hooked and you care about what happens to the characters, especially the title character. Peter Jackson knows how to handle long movies so you can rest assured that this time will be used wisely and effectively.

On a visual standpoint, the film is a masterpiece. Everything from the dinosaurs to man-eating worms and Cessna sized vampire bats are incredibly realistic and at times, terrifying. The dinosaur stampede was exhilarating and I blown away with the Tyranosaurus Rexes. Everyone in the theatre curled their toes and squealed with laughter and horror whenever a giant bug came on screen, and I can promise you that you will do the same. And the big ape himself, King Kong, is a CGI triumph. He has emotion and presence and looks in every sense the way I imagined him to be. His ordeal from isolated tropical island to depression-era Big Apple sparks huge sympathy in the audience and it's hard not to feel sad when the conclusion comes around.

In the main cast, Jack Black and Adrian Brody get the job done. Jack Black, for starters and in my opinion, is not exactly my first choice for such a film. He is more fit for comedies and slapstick (Orange County comes to mind) but he carries his well role and is quite believable. Thank goodness. As for Adrian Brody, I was very pleased how he worked out. He seemed very natural in his role and was subtle and fit a heroes personality without seeming arrogant or cocky. A good decision from the casting team.

And poor Naomi Watts! Her character can barely go 10 feet without being snapped at by a giant monster! How she was able to keep her beautiful white dress clean throughout the entire ordeal is beyond me but the woman can definitely belt out a good scream. A Fay Wray she is not but Naomi Watts does her character justice and fits into it with ease and grace.

In all, King Kong deserves a 9/10. It has everything you want this holiday season with excitement, sadness, sympathy, adventure, and pure smashing fun. I highly recommend it and I have no doubt that your theatre will be buzzing after wards like it did with mine.

Hannity & Colmes (1996–2008)

Well, at least FOX news had the courage to let a liberal co-host one of their shows...

[12 December 2005]

Alright, a debate show! Oh goody goo! I should probably mention at this point that I love debate shows. And that means that Hannity and Colmes is no exception. But I should mention right now that I am in no way a Republican. In fact, I'm center-left and I've lived in the Commonwealth my entire life. But Hannity and Colmes, no matter how way you slice it, is entertaining...much like the other dozens of biased bloated news shows on FOX.

If you've never heard of this show before, Hannity and Colmes is a FOX debate show starring jack-sprat and his wife, Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity, respectively. Then, they interview people. Then they debate. And then, things get worse...

Alan Colmes, in short, is a dweeb. With huge glasses and a face only a mother could love, Colmes is routinely harassed and barely gets any talk time. He's like the little annoying kid that gets picked last for basketball; not matter how loud he talks or high he jumps, he gets drowned out by just about everyone.

The man on the other side of the coin is Sean Hannity, who is the polar opposite of Colmes both physically and politically. Sean is louder, more obnoxious, smug (Don't worry Bill O'Reilly, you still have the lead) and has a neck like an Easter ham. Hannity is basically the boss of this show. Anything that the guests say in interviews can't be said without his approval. Because of this, Sean comes off as someone who adores the sound of his own voice and is very unpleasant.

Because of this totally lopsided bias, Hannity and Colmes is not the best debate show on TV. "Crossfire" is (or shall I say "was") superior to this joke but nothing - NOTHING - can ever replace Hannity and Colmes. Why? Because it's one of the few shows that no matter how much to hate it's guts or despise it's political beliefs, it's impossible to turn away. Hannity and Colmes will grab your attention from the start and unfortunately, it won't let go. That's probably why it's so popular and has many news shows in it's time slot running for cover.

Hannity and Colmes is one of the better shows on FOX but that really not saying much. It's biased, obnoxious, and sometimes, you just can't stand it. But it's ridiculously entertaining and I guess that's all that matters.

The Factor (1996–2017)

Love it or hate it, the 'Factor" is one of the most entertaining news shows on television...

[11 December 2005]

"You're about to enter a no-spin zone!": those are Bill O'Reilly's opening words to his very own show The O'Reilly Factor. You'd think with these opening words, the show would be a no nonsense look at world events with a no-spin host seeking justice in an untruthful world. But the end result is one of the most venomous, most entertaining, and plainly biased news shows on television.

O'Reilly is not exactly known as one of the more humble personalities on television and apparently, Bill is well aware of this. This strikingly obvious conservative bias is what helps the show entertaining despite the eye-rolling attempts to convince his audience that he is a "traditionalist". (A traditionalist- how'd ya like that?) Elsewhere, venom spitting and his repeated attempts to tell the guests to "Shut up!" are common and frequent and unfortunately this is one of the reasons why the show is so addictive and so sinfully entertaining.

O'Reilly is also known for some hilarious and at times, frightening quotes. Recently, he described how the United States and Britain "bailed Europe out" during the Cold War. Uh-huh. And before the invasion Iraq, he responded to a soldier mother who was concerned on the number of possible troops deaths that, "{It's} their job! That's what they do!" Compassion at it's finest, Bill!

More recently, The O'Reilly Factor is to many Ground Zero on the supposed "War on Christmas". (Good Lord, how many of these wars are going on?) The show is up to it's neck at times about earth shattering topics such Christmas trees, nativity scenes, and Christmas cards describing how the "liberal secular media" is trying to destroy that special time of year. At least it gives the audience a break from Bill's weird fascination with Jesse Jackson and Howard Stern.

In conclusion, the O'Reilly Factor is quite frankly, a very entertaining show. It's great if you want to be entertained and get some laughs but it's my last choice if you want truthful, non-biased journalism.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

A worthy family film that's a bit slow out of the gate but enchants both young and old...

[9 December 2005]

One of the most anticipated films of the year is the adaption of the beloved book by C.S. Lewis "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". With a cinema filled of families and people of all ages (there were more adults than kids), I was very excited about enjoying a film that I had waited impatiently for weeks to see.

Just to get the negatives out of the way, Narnia is a bit slow. The first 40 minutes crawl by at a snails pace and the lead up to the meeting of Mr. Tumnus and Lucy is dragged out too much. But when all four kids get through the wardrobe, the story really gets to picked up by likable characters (the beavers come to mind) and tense scenes with the White Witch.

As for the positive notes, the scenery was top notch, with many people in the audience audibly playing "Where in the country was this scene filmed?" The animation and special effects are brilliant as well. Most notably, Aslan, the lion saviour, is wonderfully animated and incredibly realistic. At times, you could just as well be looking at a real lion. Other effects of centaurs, fauns, griffins, beavers, and bull-headed monsters are also top notch.

On an entirely different note, I really don't understand what all the fuss is about with the religious allegory. The symbolism is there for all to see including all the elements of sacrifice, and forgiveness, but it's not "in your face" or distracts you from the rest of the story. If you enter the cinema seeking an allegory on Somebody's sacrifice, you'll be content with what you see. And if you plan seeing this film just as a family friendly holiday movie, you'll be content too.

In all, Narnia deserves a worthy 7/10. It may be a bit slow out of the gate and outstay it's welcome length, but it's a worthy family film that enchants both young and old and transports you effectively into the land of Narnia.

The Notebook (2004)

The "Ben-Hur" of 21st century tear-jerkers

[28 November 2005]

"The Notebook" is a story everyone in the world has heard a million times before; young Romeo-and-Juliet summer love which is tossed and turned continuously by opposing outside forces. We've read it a hundred times before we start the first chapter, know the conclusion before we see the end of the film, and can relate it to so many moments from the past relationships of our lives.

But what makes this film different from others is one main thing; beauty.

Never before have I been moved this emotionally by a romance. From the moment is starts, you get sucked right in. You're totally involved in in these characters and unlike many romantic films I've watched, you actually care about what happens. The love between Allie and Noah is so passionate and so vivid yet real and universal for any age. Any viewer will stay connected with the story for the film's length and will be moved long after the credits stop rolling.

No matter how many times you've seen movies with the exact same plot, I promise you you'll appreciate every second of "The Notebook". I think the world could use a few more movies like this. It truly shows that love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Just beautiful.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

A misfire if there ever was one

[27 November 2005]

Kingdom of Heaven first caught my attention in early 2005 when I viewed the spectacular teaser trailer on the net. The visuals were dazzling, music was fantastic, story seemed promising, and the cinematography looked beautiful. I was expecting a brilliant Ridley Scott film that delivered emotion to the max and a memorable story that kept the audience coming.

Unfortunately, it appears my expectations were far too high.

Kingdom of Heaven, to be fair, started out very promising. Without giving away any spoilers, it was moving, somber, and quite heartbreaking. But the film takes a dive when the plot is instantly lost in the dunes. This refers to problem #1 which is quite simply, the film is all over the place. Successful epic films like Lord of the Rings had a clear point, purpose, and plot. KoH doesn't have any of this continuity. Several scenes race back and forth; Orlando in Jerusalem, a random battle, Templar knights kill Muslims, random 15 second love scene, Orlando digs for water, another battle, etc. Quite frankly, KoH is too mishmashy to be enjoyed properly and will leave the viewer scratching their head and desperately looking for a rock solid plot.

The second problem is Orlando Bloom. (Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the man. Hey I'm 17; stick an armour clad Orlando in front of me and I'm a happy gal) In order to have a successful, emotional film, the movie must have one of two choices: a strong lead actor to carry the film by himself (Russel Crowe- Gladiator), or a spectacular firm supporting cast where all burdens are shared equally (Lord of the Rings). This is one point where KoH looses out on so early. Quite simply, Orlando can't seem to do this. He seems like a 19th century gentlemen; not a tough-as-nails 12th century crusading knight. Perhaps he needs to mature a bit more. Or maybe his personality is far too sensitive to carry this type of role. Either way, the film fails to reach a level of emotional climax and honestly, I think the casting directer should be given a clip around the head for suggesting Bloom as the lead.

But don't get me too wrong, the film does have some good things. The supporting cast of Liam Neeson, David Thewlis, Marton Csokas, and Edward Norton is excellent. The seize on Jerusalem is eye-popping and hence, the F/X team deserves a big round of applause. Other moments of Bloom's character visiting Holy sights in Jerusalem had the great potential to have some spiritual meaning. Despite these highlights, the bad things out number the good and therefore the score is brought way down.

Overall, I'll have to give Kingdom of Heaven a 5 out of 10. While the visuals are excellent and the supporting cast is great, the film misfires at just about everything else. Basically, it's a fast food version of the crusades with all the fat and sugar but none of the enjoyment.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

After watching Pulp Fiction, everything else will seem like bread and water...

[11 November 2005]

Often copied but never duplicated, Pulp Fiction was an absolute sensation when it came out in 1994. It became an audience favourite, received universal praise from critics, won the Best Film at the Cannes Film Festival, and made director Quintin Tarantino into a household name. How many films out there can you fit into this category?

Pulp Fiction is so famous for several reasons. First off, it's one of the most original films of the 90's. When most movies out there are either remakes, sequels, based on books, or on actual events, Tarantino gives us 2-inch sirloin steak that's bloody as hell. The plot is several stories all interelated in someway or another that weave in and out over a period of about 48 hours (give or take and afternoon) all within the shifty comings and goings of the LA drug life. Each story connects the characters together, like a puzzle within a puzzle, and is all held together strongly with a fantastic cast (John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis) and Acadamy Award worthy performances.

Secondly, it has tremendous dialogue. Quintin Tarantino is an absolute genius in crafting the film's Oscar winning screenplay. This isn't made up nonsense. This stuff is real. Many of the dialogue you could so easily overhear from the people talking behind you in the grocery line. They're conversations of reality, and this is what helps make the film so good. And when it has to be, the script is sharp as a razor blade in which Samuel L. Jackson deserves much praise for.

Thirdly, it is amazingly memorable. Most movies would be lucky to have about 2 memorable scenes; Pulp Fiction has about nine. Mia Wallace and Vincent Vega's fantastic twist dance scene became of the most iconic scenes of the 90's (I will admit I tried a few moves in front of my bedroom mirror). Mia getting stabbed with a syringe makes everyone's knees knock and who doesn't laugh darkly at Winston Wolf's scenes. The acting, the story, the characters, everything just works. That's all as I can describe it.

After watching Pulp Fiction, everything else will seem like bread and water. So don't be afraid to watch this wildly outrageous, fantastic, bloody, and often surreal film that turned the 90's upside down. It's all that and a bag of chips. Get out there and rent it.

House of the Dead (2003)

Film-making at it's most insulting

[11 October 2005]

Okay, I have a confession; I originally rented this film because I heard it was horrible. Stupid, I know. But being a fan of B-cinema and after suffering through Gigli, and Killer Tomatoes Eat France, I thought I had the courage, experience, and initiative to try out a dreaded Uwe Boll flick. Ladies and gentlemen, I was wrong.

I won't begin to describe the plot because the amount of stupidity in the layout makes me want to vomit. Basically, it's a mindless zombie flick that had a budget that could barely buy 2 Big Gulps at 7/11. Mindless violence, rubber zombies, split-second shots of the actual video game (??!!?!?!) take the helm and give us a gore fest starred by some of the worst actors ever caught on celluloid. The film hit rock bottom at the 15 minute (yes, 15 minutes) shootout scene, complete with Matrix-style 360* sequences. At the point where the Asian in the American flag jumpsuit dodges an axe in slow motion "Neo" style thrown by a zombie and blows it's head off with an AK-47, I could actually feel my brain turn to mush. Why? C'mon guys! There is no way anyone - ANYONE - could actually sit down and map this nonsense out. It's just too insulting for words. But alas, the ridiculous scenes, and insulting nonsense poured on screen continue and then the "off" button on your DVD player, much like a bullet to the head, begins to look mighty friendly.

If you're curious, I really don't recommend it. If there's anything in the world that doesn't deserve a penny of your cash, it's this stupid movie!!

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

Volume 2 will answer all the questions and blow you away

[9 October 2005]

The Bride (Uma Thurman) was left for dead and woke up ticked off in Vol. one. After a bloody first struggle, the Bride now continues her bloodthirsty quest in the American South-West for her three remaining back stabbers: Budd, Elle, and most importantly, Bill. Through dust, blood, and the grave, she fights and bites her way to show her lack of mercy on the trio. However, before it ends, the Bride finds out some startling information on why she was almost killed and who is still alive after 4 long years.

It's obviously very popular for the talk on whether which installment of the series is the best as we constantly hear this yammering on. For instance, Volume 1 is often referred to as the exciting one which entertains you to a startling extent. Volume 2 is commonly noted as the idle, less dramatic, and less interesting movie. Yes, this film is takes it's time more and the body count is surprisingly small but in my opinion, I enjoyed this one more mainly because Tarantino steps away from the fake blood and gets back to the bread and butter of a successful film; the story. In the words of Tarantino himself, "Volume 1 is the questions, Volume 2 is the answers". It's the drama, stupid!

Anyways, what I really loved about this film in a nutshell is the story and the style in which it was told. Volume one was the Asian kung-fu bloodbath with bizarre scenery, great acting, and schizophrenic soundtrack. Volume two is the old fashioned Western where the story leads the advance and the lone Bride finally reaches her show down with her nemesis. Anything that was fuzzy, or unexplained in the first film is revealed in the Vol. 2 and told through Quentin Tarantino's marvelous storytelling and direction. The brilliant soundtrack also brings an authentic Spanish flavour to the stew, introducing all those high noon showdown themes from 70's spaghetti westerns that we all know and love.

One of the best scenes in this film (and also one of my personal faves) is the fantastic fight between the Bride and Elle Driver. Want a rundown? Every glorious punch, kick, whip, smash, crash, poke, flush, splat, cut, and stomp all perfectly roar together to give probably the most satisfying duel I've ever seen on the silver screen. Here's how I'd describe it in a bizarre way; imagine two rabid wolverines who are high on angel dust fight to the death in a tiny enclosed room with wooden furniture. Brutal? Yes. Entertaining? Hell yeah!

All in all, Kill Bill vol. 2 is a brilliant film whose soundtrack, story, direction, and action all collectively help to bring the film to a roaring success. It's definitely worth the twenty bucks for the DVD and I guarantee you it will be money well spent.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

An interesting take on the third installment in the Harry Potter saga

[24 June 2005]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is my favourite of the books so far but right off the bat, I have some mixed feelings about the movie. There are some huge differences between this film and the previous installments and that's not necessarily for the best. Let's begin...

Azkaban is considerably darker and more mature than the other two films. Every scene in this film is morbid and dreary with little or no humour. Rupurt Grint, normally the oddball comedian in the films, rarely gives the audience a chuckle. Not even the Great Hall gives off that warm light that normally shines during Harry, Ron, and Hermione's dinners. And judging from this, I think the box office numbers reflect that. The target audience for the Potter books is getting to that weird gangly age where they begin to lose interest in things (thankfully, I was well off the puberty train many moons ago). If the the HP crew want to keep the boulder moving, they need less talking and more action.

But there are also some good things here. All the actor's voices have cracked (thank God) after passing that hunch of 13. There are fewer childish moments than in the previous films (that damn shrunken head still bothered me) but the maturity of the plot and cast keep this film afloat. The FX are not spectacular but are still quite good.

But probably the best and least celebrated element of this film is the music. John William's goose-bump infused score, to me at least, is gorgeous. The music in the final scene with Sirius was actually quite beautiful. In some other thoughtful moments between Lupin and Harry, the film provides some lovely Celtic music. With myself having quite a strong Welsh background, the music actually made my day more enjoyable.

All in all, if I had to compare, I'd be forced to say that "Chamber of Secrets" is the best so far out of the series. Azkaban tries hard to be good but the slow pace and morbid tone keep the score at a worthy 7. It's still worth checking out but probably not worth buying.

Garden State (2004)

One of the most original films I've ever seen.

[28 May 2005]

With big-budget blockbusters filling theatres with mindless sex, violence, and clichéd issues, rarely does a film along with a breath of fresh air. Have you ever seen a film so delightfully wonderful, you actually felt like a different person after watching it? If not, I suggest you watch Garden State, one of the best, most original film's I've seen this decade.

What I love about this film is that it displays the late teenage-twentysomething crowd as real people. With myself in that age group, I often find it insulting that so many films portray us as sex crazed potheads, in trouble with the law, while disrespecting ourselves. Garden State tackles all those generalizations to the mud showing us that we're people who just want to know who the heck we are. It's all about finding out who you're supposed to be while living a confused life and facing your demons. All of this is brought to life in the film with great acting, a superb screenplay, and direction that can only be described as perfection.

The film has immediately been put on my top 10 list for a good reason. I just hope Hollywood listens up because these are the kind of films people want to see.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Episode III is everything the two other prequels should have been.

[20 May 2005]

Well, folks. It's been almost 30 years since the first Star Wars film graced the screen and now it has finally ended. It started out with a bang and ends with a bang again. This is "Revenge of the Sith". Everything you've ever wanted to know about how Darth Vader came to power is explained in this vast improvement from Episodes I and II.

One of the elements I liked the most about this film is that it tries to find out what makes a man evil. Anakin was never wholly evil. He was an unsure, young budding Jedi knight who was seeking for some answers. Palpatine slyly uncovered his insecurities and his fears and leading him into a lie that the Dark Side's philosophy of the force was the way to conquer those worries. It's with this deception that Anakin falls from grace and becomes Darth Vader. (Vader, just for education's sake, is Dutch for father)

Acting and dialogue wise, it's step up from Lucas' two previous films. Everything simply seems to flow smoother. Hayden Christensen's performance is far more believable than his scenes in Attack of the Clones which were, at times, unwatchable. The dialogue is also a tad more polished but the clunky lines always seem to pop up at some inappropriate times.

And yes, the talk is true with the final lightsabre fight between the Obi-Wan and his apprentice. The entire scene is brilliantly executed and tragic. John William's haunting score adds desperation to the sequence. I honestly didn't know Lucas had it in him.

At the inevitable conclusion, there are no lose ends. Everything is tied up. You see what happens to Obi-Wan, Yoda, Darth Vader, the crumbled and destroyed Republic, and the Twins. I choked at the final scene. It was a fitting conclusion to a much loved series, and perfectly connects to the original trilogy Lucas composed all those years ago.

All in all, Episode III is the best and most enjoyable of the prequel films. The whole theatre enjoyed it from start to finish and I am glad I took the time to appreciate a good series, despite it's flaws.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

A cinematic classic that I will treasure forever

[28 April 2005]

What can I say right now that hasn't been celebrated a million times before? I grew up with these films when I was young, building my childhood full of memories of wookies, stormtroopers, and fighting my younger brother with wrapping paper tubes to create our own lightsaber fights. This film is nothing less than a cinematic triumph with scenes, characters, and music that have practically revolutionized the way we look at the movies. Who on this good earth doesn't feel a rush of excitement to see that Star Wars logo on screen which sweeps into the distance with that oh so hummable theme?

Even over 25 years later the story is still as enjoyable and original as it was way back in the 70's. It deserves a rightful place in your DVD library.

From Justin to Kelly (2003)

Absolute rubbish from start to finish.

[20 April 2005]

American Idol was such a hit when it debuted that some writers were feverish to grab a quick buck off the two finalists, Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini. However, that decision produced one of the most poorly conceived films I have ever suffered through. The film is chock full of ridiculous dance sequences, high school quality acting, and Razzie deserving performances provided by our two heroes. You'll ping-pong from awful scene-to-scene. Justin with his nauseating friends, then to Kelly with hers, then back to Justin, then to Kelly, both groups are on the beach and BAM! a huge choreographed dance sequence with beach towels.

Look, you could get away with this kinda rubbish in the 70's but c'mon folks, wake up! This was released in 2003, and in this era of cutthroat criticism, a film must prove a need for its existence. This beach musical is the equivalent of creating a new species of dinosaur just before the meteor hit. On a lighter gear, the film is a mighty shame. Kelly Clarkson actually has a great voice and seeing her newly budding career potentially go down in flames is a little hard to watch. But on the lighter note, Kelly was able to bounce back from this forgettable film and release some radio hits. As for Justin? Well, go tell him his acting blew…if you can find him.

From Justin to Kelly is certainly an awful film, but the soon-to-be-a-cult-classic "Gigli" takes gold in the worst movie of its year. Watch this only on cable. You'll be glad you saved the five bucks from the video store.

Finding Neverland (2004)

The story behind the story.

[11 April 2005]

Peter Pan has been a childhood classic for years but never before has it been told from this angle. Johnny Depp plays J.M.Barrie, a playwright desperate for some inspiration for a new play. He meets and forms a tight friendship with a widow (Kate Winslet) and her 4 boys who are struggling to keep their life in order. This friendship then gives Barrie the much needed inspiration for the idea of a lifetime.

Johnny Depp arguably does his best performance to date and he is able to accomplish this without smashing plates, or giving a dramatic soliloquies. His performance is subtle and tender. And his hard work echoed in his Best Actor nomination last February. On the ladies side, Kate Winslet is absolutely lovely in this film. She's has grace and tragedy and by half way through the film, she has completely won over the audience's warmth and love. Glimpses of neverland itself are tear jerking. When you sit back, and watch the amazing beauty of a heaven like world dance in front of you, it's hard not to get choke back some mist. Despite the warm fluttery feeling I felt when leaving the theatre, I can't seem to give this film a 10. This is mainly due to pace but the music and gorgeous visuals keep the score at a solid eight.

It's a gorgeous film with love, beauty, and imagination that shouldn't be missed. PS: If your prone to crying, taking a tissue might be handy.

Finding Nemo (2003)

Get blown out of the water!

[27 March 2005]

I saw this film at a 9:40pm show about a good month after it's release date. I wasn't expecting anything spectacular but lo and behold Pixar completely blew me out of the water. Finding Nemo is a beautiful and gorgeous film about a clown fish desperate to look for his adventurous son, who has been captured from the ocean and put in a destist's office fish tank. The adventures along the way never stop Marlin's quest from being accomplished. It's a wonderful story on love, determination, and tenderness delivered with pure wit and magic.

The film's visuals are Acadamy Award worthy. I went to Hawaii last Christmas and went snorkeling in a reef and I instantly thought of this film. Pixar animators captured the colour and life of a tropical reef wonderfully, alive with magic, and beauty. And not many films can do that. And the voices are top notch. Ellen Degeneres is side-splitting as the not-so-smart Dory. Other voices provided by Geoffrey Rush, William Dafoe, and Eric Bana are also nice touches.

Whether you have children or you're a child at heart, Finding Nemo deserves to be bought and added to your DVD collection.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

The little film that could.

[26 March 2005]

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a hilarious and sweet film about a Greek woman, waiting for her life to take off. One day however, she meets and falls in love with Ian and gets engaged. The problem is, he's a non-Greek and her family is uneasy about accepting him. Ian must appease them by being baptized into the Greek Orthodox church in a kiddie pool, and inviting his boring parents to meet the family.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding was an independent smash starting with a budget of barely $5 million and in the end, grossing over $200 million at the box office. And there's a solid reason for that. The film is filled with heart, humour, and romance. It's set in the real world, interacting with real characters and not seeming like they are drawn up from some fantasy. It's living proof that independent films can dream big and achieve just as much. Opa!

Jack-O (1995)

It's harvest time!

[25 March 2005]

Am I being sacrilegious for watching such an awful movie on Easter weekend? This weekend is used to reflect and celebrate the joys of our lives with the spirit of rebirth. And believe me, this movie couldn't have killed that spirit more.

To save you from being bored silly with the plot, let's just go straight to the check list:

-Awful plot. Check! The story layout appeals to a Friday night flick fan but has about as much emotional depth as dinner theatre. The film is disastrously long and dull. About 30% of the film is designated to Sean Kelly's dream sequences (don't ask), 25% to introducing people who have no effect on the plot, 15% to Sean's dad's haunted mansion, 10% to trick-or-treating with kids no one knows who the heck they are, another 10% to some moron, his girlfriend, and his Harley, and a remaining grand total of 5% to Jack-o. The remaining 5% is reserved for shots of nudity, storm clouds, and people talking about food.

-Totally non-frightening antagonist. Check! I've screamed more in an episode of Murphy Brown than this. Jack-o himself is about as lame as a duck with one leg in front of a pack of hungry wolves. He kills a few but there are absolutely no tense and heart racing chase sequences, no real climax. His overall presence lacks fright and bite, something that Freddy Krueger in "Elm Street", Jason Vorhees in "Friday the 13th", and Ben Affleck in "Gigli" all achieved.

-Awful F/X. Check! Normally in a standard slasher flick, a victim to the creature's blade will be shown being gutted in all it's bloody, disgusting glory. But of course we don't see this happen. That would require effort, something the crew of this film wern't ready to commit. However, they were generous enough to buy fire crackers and glue them to a crucifix and set it alight. Somebody call the KKK. This self-lighting cross idea could really takeoff.

-Awful acting. Check! The boy who plays Sean Kelly is horrendous. At times, it seems like the director slipped him a sleeping pill just before shooting. This kid just mumbles out his lines with no care in the world. The director obviously could not give a damn whether the boy's acting was up to any kind of par. Ironically, the young actor is the directors son! That's nepotism is it's purest form, folks!

-Obligatory shower girl. Check! I think no further comment is necessary.

-Various other scenes of obligatory nudity. Check! (see above)

All in all, Jack-o deserves a few points for making such a disaster and fooling some poor film company into distributing it. Other than that, this film deserves to be dead and buried, much like Jack-o himself.

The 700 Club (1966– )

Meaningless patrio-religious group think

[19 March 2005]

Before I start, I just need to something straight: I have absolutely nothing against Jesus. And I have absolutely no problem with anyone who has faith. Any questions? Good. Let's move on.

Have you ever watched someone on TV so incredibly grating and annoying you wish they would just shrivel up and die? If not, welcome to the colorful world of The 700 Club; a news show where earth shattering topics such as school prayer, army chaplains, Christian music, and age-defying milkshakes are delivered into the hungry hands of red-state America.

Three of the most painfully looking news anchors in the history of television host a 30 minute show about the Christian life. While that may sound uplifting, don't be fooled. This show targets and destroys (much like a heat seeking missile) Muslims, Jews, Hindus, non- Christian "cults", gays, feminists, democrats, Christian liberals, and everything else under the sun for the world's problems. This makes the show about as comfortable as sitting on a long plane flight next to someone who asks you if you've heard the good news about Jesus.

But the worst of this show can be said in two words: Gordon Robertson. This idiot stands in front of the camera as if he's the salt of the earth, permanently portraying his smug smile and ghastly hair to the masses. Not only that but his forehead is so monstrously big, it actually distracts you from listening to what he has to say.

The 700 Club is a show that's entertaining if you're looking for a laugh but case in point: if you're looking for uplifting spiritual guidance, The 700 Club will do nothing for help.

Gigli (2003)

A dead-in-the-water movie filled with laughable dialogue and crummy plot

[18 March 2005]

J-Lo and Ben Affleck star in this cinematic abortion originally thinking that because of all the ridiculous publicity "Bennifer" received in spring and summer '03, a film starring both of them at the same time will show society that couples can truly work together. And it worked. Like a race car with sugar in the tank. Yes, this is "Gigli": looks like it's pronounced "Jig-lee" but it rhymes with "really". And it's gigli gigli bad.

Look, friends: I've seen a lot of B-movies before. But they all had budgets that couldn't buy 2 Big Crunches at KFC. This? This had a fifty-four million dollar budget. And it got a pitiful amount back. And here's why. In this film, there is a vacuum of emptiness where humour, good plot, and chemistry are meant to fill. Gigli fails at all of these. Bennifer's love scene has absolutely no nudity and it's utterly unbelievable since J-Lo's character is supposedly a lesbian. With the lack of chemistry between them, it would be not surprising if Ms. Lopez gave birth to furniture. As for the plot, it's cringe worth. Affleck is forced to keep care of a retarded kid. But pretty much nothing happens. It's just LONG and DULL. And the humour? Please don't get me started on that. Ninety percent of the laughs are completely unintentional. But the pace is the worst! Several scenes push the 10 minute mark. Now, that would be okay if it wasn't boring. But it is. In one of these scenes, Al Pachino (!) appears and has a speech in a length that rivals a Macbeth soliloquy. I eventually got so frustrated I switch to the channel above for air and (praise god) Red Dragon was on. I watched Edward Norton for a few minutes to steal some sanity back and then flipped back to Gigli. AL PACHINO WAS STILL TALKING! God, I used to blow a fuse when commericals longer than 3 minutes interrupted my favourite TV show. This is so much worse. Oh how the mighty have fallen!

Despite what I just spewed, "Gigli" is not the worst film of all time as it's often hyped to be but it's a runaway winner for the most abysmal film of '03. It's not worth a rental because well, it's just not worth any of your money. If your curious about the film, please for the love of God wait until it comes out on cable where you are, like I did.

Barney & Friends (1992–2010)

Even when I was hobbit height I loathed it.

[17 March 2005]

Big Bird, Bert and Ernie, Postman Pat, Oscar the Grouch, the Happy Giant. What do all of these names have in common. They're wonderful memorable childhood TV characters. Why? Because they're classics. And classics are timeless pieces of entertainment that will stay with you forever. They shape your early years, how you learn, what you learn, and even how you act with others. And you know who isn't in that list? Barney the Dinosaur. And why? BECAUSE HE IS THE MOST ANNOYING CHILDREN'S CHARACTER EVER CREATED BY GOD!

Imagine a purple therapod about 9 feet tall with a voice so high it makes dogs howl at a 5-mile radius. Then add a theme song based on "Yankee Doodle" and voilà! you have Barney. The problem with this character is that he is extremely annoying. And I don't mean annoying as in uncomfortable to stand. I mean mentally grating and painful to see and hear. While Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, and Grover are down to earth characters that are fuzzy and lovable, Barney is more sugary, yippidy, and "in your face". And let's not forget the infamous "I Love You" song played EVERY TIME the show finishes. It's so deliciously bad, it's "download onto your ipod to torture friends" worthy.

1/10