themkody Reviews

Real Steel (2011)

Not enough robot-boxing, too much of the larger-than-life kid

[5/10 · 12 January 2012]

When I went to see Real Steel, I really didn't expect that much of a story. Well, Real Steel had a story, for better and for worse. But just a typical Hollywood story, unfortunately. Nothing new at all. The kid was rather annoying, and unbelievable as well. I was simply unable to accept the fact that he had such a large part. This should have been Hugh Jackman's movie, but it felt more like it was the kids movie. Seriously, haven't we seen this kind of story too many times already? Kid reunites with his dad, but hates him at first. Kid gets obsessed with his fathers interests, kid challenges the world, kid tries to get his father back on track, who pretty much acts like an adult baby throughout the film. They argue, they win, they shed some tears, and so on and so forth. And then add robots. Even though Hugh Jackman was mildly amusing at times, the story in whole was rather bland. The whole robot part was great though, I just wanted more of it. Way more. That's what I wanted from a movie called "Real Steel" anyway. Real Steel should just have sticked to what it was best at: a robot film, while keeping the standard Hollywood fare to a minimum. Real Steel could have been great if it had dared to go beyond Hollywood, but it didn't.

Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

Superbad (2007)

Sometimes funny, sometimes cringe-worthy. Superbad is definitely worth your time, just don't expect a laugh riot.

[5/10 · 12 January 2012]

Bill Hader and Seth Rogen were undoubtedly the funniest thing about the film. You know you're in for a laugh once they're in front of the camera...which is why the movie would have been better off evolving around them instead of the three annoying teens. If you want to see Michael Cera funny, watch him in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, now that's an amusing role. But in Superbad, he's actually more embarrassing than funny. Even more so is Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Jonah Hill was supposed to be the funniest of the three, which he was, but I just didn't feel the script had much to offer him. They were funny once in awhile, luckily not completely devoid of funny lines, but you know there's something wrong when the supporting roles are way more funnier than the lead roles in a comedy film.

Better than your average teen/comedy movie, but not as funny as people claims it to be, though - Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

Into the Wild (2007)

Man escaping into the wild in order to live a primitive life - one of the most honest, touching and beautifully filmed films I have ever seen

[10/10 · 11 January 2012]

This was a great film. When a film manages to be both exciting and emotional at the same time, you know it's a success. This is one of those films. You actually care for Emile Hirsch, it's truly a great performance. It was exciting watching what kind of people he ran into, how he interacted with them and the impact they had on him (and the other way around). Every actor in the film did a great job. The soundtrack, recorded by Eddie Vedder (frontman of Pearl Jam) is very smooth and relaxing; perfectly suitable. Probably the best soundtrack for a film, ever.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

Adrealine rush defined

[9/10 · 11 January 2012]

What a great film. One of the best action films I've ever seen. Clive Owen kicks major ass, and he's even having fun while doing so! Luckily, so are we. It doesn't try to be anything else. It doesn't try to hide from what it really is: an action/comedy film. Shoot 'Em Up embraces this in every single scene, in every single frame. At times, it is very over-the-top, but in this case, it's definitely a plus! There's not much else to say about this film other than it will probably be the most satisfying action-film you will ever see.

Bold, over the top and simply bad-ass - this is a real keeper if you're a fan of action.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Batman Begins (2005)

Not as dark and comic book-ish as it should have been

[5/10 · 11 January 2012]

This movie didn't feel a lot like Batman to me. Better than The Dark Knight, a lot better actually. But still not quite Batman. This movie had some good qualities (due to a great director behind the project) such as character study. The performances were nothing to brag about. Bale was actually acceptable in this (unlike TDK), the villains were so-so, the performances were basically average. Nothing groundbreaking, but luckily no cringe-worthy performances either. In the original comics, Batman was supposed to be a great detective, with great villains capable of outsmarting him. in Batman Begins, none of the villains have any real motives, other than committing random acts of terror. If you have dumb villains, the protagonist will most likely adjust to their intelligence, which was the case in Batman Begins. The film was simply devoid of an interesting protagonist, and even more devoid of interesting villains. The action scenes were badly edited, they certainly took away from the enjoyment and made the film look even more like an action film, and even less like Batman. What Batman Begins also lacked was great cinematography and visuals, which was the primary reason this didn't feel like a comic book film at all. Watch Burton's Batman films and you'll see what I mean.

Overall, an okay film, but a disappointing Batman film. I guess this is one of those films where I can understand why people loved it, but I am unable to love it or even like it myself. It just didn't appeal to my taste.

Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

Dark City (1998)

One of the most unique and refreshing films I have ever seen

[10/10 · 11 January 2012]

The story is thought-provoking and leaves you pondering for days. The acting is phenomenal, not a single actor is wasted in the small cast. Those worthy of praise are Kiefer Sutherland (probably his best role to date) and Rufus Sewell (he was great in this, how come nobody has ever seen him since?). The cinematography is some of the best I have ever seen. I'd go as far and say the visual experience was as good as Blade Runner, if not better. It also has a great neo-noir feel to it, which adds to the atmosphere.

Perfectly combining neo-noir, sci-fi and a thought-provoking story, this movie is simply too good to be true - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

True Romance (1993)

Watching one of Tarantino's first screenplays come to life was enjoyable, but there's not much else to it

[6/10 · 11 January 2012]

True Romance failed to interest me enough. I didn't really care about anyone or anything. It was interesting watching one of Tarantino's very first screenplays come to life, and it was actually pretty good, however it was nowhere near as creative as the other films he wrote. This isn't exactly what Tony Scott does best. While The Last Boy Scout and Beverly Hills Cop II were directed with skill, he fails to fully satisfy with True Romance. I've always wondered how this movie would turn out if Tarantino had directed it instead. He could probably have done it better. But ultimately, the plot is so poor that even if Tarantino would direct it, it would still be a sinking ship.

Christian Slater and Juliette Lewis are pretty good though, but what really saves True Romance is the exceptionally great supporting cast, notably Gary Oldman and Christopher Walken, who deliver top-notch performances. They are, without a doubt, the best thing about this movie, despite their screen time is no longer than 10 minutes combined. Another supporting role worth mentioning is Brad Pitt in a two-minute role. His character is a major influence on stoner comedies later on, and it is this small role that, in my opinion, was the first to define how good his acting abilities actually is.

Overall, True Romance is worth the price of admission, because of the great supporting cast and Tarantino's (occassionally) good writing. - Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

Attack the Block (2011)

Entertaining, nothing to write home about though

[5/10 · 11 January 2012]

This was an entertaining movie, there's definitely worse ways to spend your afternoon. The film obviously wasn't very expensively made, but with a concept as ridiculous as this, there was no need for it to be more expensive. But what elevates this film from a low-budget average film is the funny performance from the always funny Nick Frost, and the great atmosphere in the film. It was actually really tense at times, I'd never have guessed the atmosphere would be that good. The film knew what kind of film it was right from the start, so if you're 15 minutes in and already feeling like you're wasting your time, there's no need to watch it 'til the end, because the film won't go in a different direction. Definitely worth the watch, but nothing to write home about.

Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

Rutger Hauer is amazing and entertaining, it truly is his best role in years. But he is let down by a sour script

[5/10 · 11 January 2012]

There's some funny grindhouse humor to be found throughout the film, but overall it's disappointing. Most of the violence throughout the film is without humor at all. Without a sharp script to back it up, the whole thing feels pointless. Rutger Hauer turns in an amazing performance, I couldn't imagine anyone else, and he played it to near perfection. He can be very funny and unpredictable, he is the best thing about this movie.

Don't expect Machete like I did, because you will get very disappointed. It's definitely worth the watch, but Tarantino or Rodriguez should have directed this instead.

Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Slick and stylish, one of the best films the Coen brothers ever made

[9/10 · 11 January 2012]

This is truly a unique film. Pretty much everything works. It is one of those films where not a single character is wasted. All of them played to pitch perfection. Those worthy of praise are Gabriel Byrne in the lead role (as cool as you will ever see him), Steve Buscemi who delivers an amazing performance in a 5-minute roles, and John Turturro who is brilliant as usual. The story is a unique one, multiple viewings are thoroughly recommended. Dialogue's sharp, cinematography's great, and that's pretty much everything you need to know. Now go see it right away.

A slick and stylish gangster film, this is one of the best films the Coen brothers ever made, perhaps better than Goodfellas - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Ironclad (2011)

A great action movie, that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is

[8/10 · 11 January 2012]

An honest, bold action film with great characterizations, with very likable characters. The actors did a great job, James Purefoy and Paul Giamatti in particular (who screams and yells a lot, he is very funny in an insane kind of way). The movie has as a bit of black humor thrown in the pot, making it an even more enjoyable movie. This is simply magnificent, old-school entertainment worth every penny. One complaint though. I wanted to kill the cameramen. Please, hold the cameras still for Christ sake! The viewers WON'T feel more like they're part of the movie when the cameras starts shaking like there's an earthquake going on, it just induces headaches. Luckily, this wasn't the case for every action scene in the movie, just a few of them. But it still bothered me a bit, this film would have been perfect without it.

Other than that, this was a bloody good time (literally), perhaps the most brutally, bloodiest and coolest film you will see this year. Why wasn't this released in theaters?

Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Adam's Apples (2005)

One of those films that makes me proud of being a Dane

[10/10 · 9 August 2011]

*CORRECTION* This film alone makes me proud of being a Dane. It is a film some viewers may never be able to fully appreciate unless they speak danish fluently. But if you enjoyed "After the Wedding" and enjoyed Mads Mikkelsen's performance just as much as I did, Adam's Apples is a movie you must watch. The black humour and emotional depth in this film is nothing short of phenomenal. It has the black humour of Pulp Fiction, and the emotional depth of The Shawshank Redemption. This might sound like a stupid idea, and I've seen films that screw it up, but Adam's Apples pulls it off. Although it's underlying themes are biblical, there are actually a lot of biblical undertones, the film doesn't force you to have any kind of religion; you can watch the movie just for the sake of the humour, skillful direction, acting, writing and emotional depth. But it's fun analyzing this film, comparing the characters to biblical characters (even though I'm an atheist).

This is a true danish masterpiece - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

The fusion of western and sci-fi turns out to be a success

[6/10 · 27 July 2011]

Jon Favreau has proved to me (once again) that he is an expert filmmaker. Being a major fan of Iron Man 1 & 2, I thought this project could do no wrong, especially with Steven Spielberg as producer. And thank god, I was right.

Cowboys & Aliens embraces both sci-fi and western, Favreau truly found the perfect balance between those two genres. The cinematography, actually, pretty much everything visual about the film, was absolutely terrific, pure eye candy. It also knows when to be silly and when to be serious, which is a good thing. One of my biggest fears was the thought of the movie drowning in cheesiness and embarrassing lines, but there was only a few of them, luckily. Like I said, the balance between silliness and seriousness is phenomenal, just like Iron Man.

While it's fun to think of it as "007 meets Indiana Jones" I must admit, Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford were really good as Jake Lonergan and Woodrow Dolarhyde, respectively. Not for a moment were I reminded of some of their previous great roles, but only the two roles they were playing in this movie.

Cowboys & Aliens was something of a risk, and while I expected a little more action, Jon Favreau did a great job and made it into a great genre mash-up. Overall, I can't recommend this film enough if you love cowboys and aliens. Unless you were ready to choke yourself as soon as you heard about the movie, the average movie-goer should have nothing to worry about.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 9.

American Psycho (2000)

Equally a great character-study as it is a comedy

[10/10 · 1 July 2011]

This movie is, on many levels, very identical to the film "Falling Down", but is by no means a bad remake. In fact, both of them are equally great. This film is from back in the day, back when Christian Bale had some great roles (before he devoted himself to a lousy portrayal of Bat(-e)man.) I'd go as far and say that his portrayal of Patrick Bateman is one of the best performances of the decade.

As the movie progresses, we see how Bateman minute by minute slowly turns into a cruel, ruthless monster. Already 5 minutes in, we begin to feel disgust towards him, but it is only the beginning. As weird as this sounds, every time he gets more ruthless he gets funnier too. There are even scenes where you feel disgust towards him, but on the same time can't stop laughing at the decisions he makes, combined with his use of words. It's a really thrilling (not to mention rewarding) experience. If you removed either the character-study or the humour, this would still have been a great movie. Both elements works really, really well, but the fusion of those two elements makes the film work exceptionally well.

The way this film combines dark humour, madness, great performances and character study is phenomenal. I can't recommend this movie enough - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Gets better and better, both by age and as the story progresses

[9/10 · 2 May 2011]

It's easy to dismiss this film as one of Tarantino's lesser popular films. But if you look closer, it's actually really good. This is a film that can't be compared to Tarantino's previous two movies, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. It features elements from both films, but is overall a more mature, straight-forward film. It's a character driven film, like any other Tarantino film, however it is slow, but in a good way. Nothing's rushed, we get a lot of time to study the different characters. The dialogue is witty and clever, just like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. Then there's the realism, which is excellently portrayed. People act and talk like it was just a normal day, which makes it an absorbing experience, and will make you forget that the actors are actually acting, and that there's actually a film crew behind the scene.

Then there's the ensemble cast. All six of the main characters each have different point of views, watching them do what they do is simply fascinating. This is one of those films where the ensemble cast works really well. All of the characters have their part in the story, nobody is miscast. It features Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Forster, Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda and Robert De Niro. Robert De Niro is very amusing, his performance is the best (out of all the great performances in the film). It's fun to watch him in this film just for validating the fact that he doesn't always get type-casted. Pam Grier and Robert Forster are excellent as well, and Samuel L. Jackson nails his role, which is somewhat identical to his character in Pulp Fiction, though that's not a bad thing.

This is another must-see Tarantino film - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

The Dark Knight (2008)

"Why so serious?" I couldn't agree more

[5/10 · 1 May 2011]

Let me start off by saying that I hated this film. However, I'm giving it a fair rating anyway. As an avid comic-book fan, I've had the pleasure of seeing almost all of the comic book adaptations that have seen the light of the day (so far). And almost all of the films have been at least a worthwhile trip. Ironically, the highest rated comic book adaptation of all time, the film I'm reviewing right now, is pretty damn far down on that list. Everything that Burton did right in "Batman", Nolan did wrong in "TDK". TDK takes itself way too serious. I think Nolan missed the point of "comic"-book. Comic, as in, amusement and entertainment. TDK is neither. It tries so hard to be a smart crime film, but to me it's just a bloody mess. The hero-villain confrontations simply falls flat, like a gum that lost it's flavor.

Then there was the action sequences, which was entertaining enough to watch. But you know there's something wrong with the movie when you're only enthralled by the action sequences. The car chase sequence felt totally out of place, reminded me more of a trailer for a Fast and the Furious reboot. Then there was the cell phone gag, which felt totally out of place as well. "Gotham City" in TDK did nothing to me. There was nothing Gothic about it. Just an ordinary Hollywood city. Burton's portrayal of Gotham City in "Batman" was simply priceless. The atmosphere was just so good, the cinematography and editing were spot on. His Gothic approach to this kind of material is probably the best ever, the only film coming close is Sin City. Burton did it all on a $48 million budget. Nolan had a $185 million budget and he failed to accomplish this task. Sadly, he didn't learn anything from his mistakes in Batman Begins, but I guess that didn't stop people from funding him.

Early Batman films were so fun to watch, and the actors that portrayed the villains, such as Jim Carrey, Jack Nicholson and Tommy Lee Jones, had such a great time, and it showed. Let's discuss the actor portraying the Joker who people praised to the skies: Heath Ledger. I completely fail to see how his performance could have been better than Nicholson, let alone equally good. Some say they were in the same league. Some say that the late Ledger was better by far. But good 'ol Nicholson will always be the true Joker to me. His portrayal of the Joker is probably one of the most accurately portrayed comic-book villains translated to the big screen, ever (some plot lines regarding the Joker was changed but Burton kept the character pure and original). Every single movement he made reflected something of his character. Heath Ledger's Joker was just a mad dog, as stated so many times during the film. Nothing more. His motives are unknown. In the original film, we are fully aware of the Joker's motives, and through flashbacks, we learn how he became such a gruesome monster. He's so fun to watch, not to mention that he actually laughs. Heath Ledger never even smirks (wait, a Joker that doesn't even laugh?) He doesn't pull any rabbits out of his hat like Nicholson. He just blows things up. He's just a sadistic nihilist and not a complex, unpredictable villain formerly known as Jack Napier. I hated how Nolan changed this character completely, if it was at least half as accurate as the original Joker, it might had been more interesting.

Two-Face was an OK villain, but suffers from the same faults that the Joker had: he doesn't have any real motives! At least Tommy Lee Jones was fun to watch. We're never let into his head; at one point he is the good guy, and at the next he's the new villain. Why? The relationship between Rachel and Two-Face was laughable, the fact that he wanted to die for her was ridiculous. The fact that he wanted to blame everyone for Rachel's death, and use "chance" as an excuse for killing people was laughable. I wanted to know what happened in between. The characters in this film are simply not developed enough, which makes them boring and uninteresting. This problem wouldn't be as big if the movie didn't solely rely on (failed) tension and atmosphere. Without adding a pinch of entertainment, which is what a true comic book adaptation should include, the movie falls flat. And it doesn't have to be ha-ha entertainment, Sin City had both atmosphere and action, and succeeded at both; The Dark Knight had failed atmosphere and little action. Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman all provide great screen presence, as always. And then there's Christian Bale, an otherwise excellent actor, who lost a lot of credibility to me after taking on the role of "Batman". What an awful choice. What a cringe-worthy performance. Keaton is without a doubt, the best Batman so far, while the rest are circus clowns compared to him.

As a final conclusion, I cannot recommend this film. Lacking elements that a real comic book adaptation should have, such as visual effects and accurately portrayed villains that are actually interesting to watch, the only redeeming values are some of the actors who did an OK job, and a few of the action scenes, notably the sequence at the beginning. Christopher Nolan is a great director, who still manages to show his skills in this film, but sadly, the benefits are for naught. The film succeeds a few times at creating, stylish, tension scenes, but those few tense scenes are far from enough from what this film could have (and should) have been. "The Dark Knight" was a huge disappointment to me, and should have been a huge improvement upon Batman Begins. I'm glad I didn't see this film with high expectations.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 7.

Awakenings (1990)

I could watch the ending over and over again and still be equally moved every time

[9/10 · 29 March 2011]

I recently watched this movie for the fourth time or so. This is truly a powerful and magical film, sparkling with emotions and good acting in almost every scene. You can tell that everyone involved with this film wanted it to be good. Not just good, but perfect (and the latter is an understatement.) I can't praise De Niro's performance enough, it is one of his finest performances since "Taxi Driver". Despite being overshadowed by De Niro, Robin Williams pulls off a noteworthy performance. I wish people would one day look back on Awakenings as one of the best movies ever made, the same way that people are looking back on Shawshank today. But sadly, I doubt that will ever happen. This film will most likely be forgotten as time passes. I'm never gonna forget this film, it's gonna stay with me until death.

I often find myself comparing this film to The Shawshank Redemption. Both films have two great themes in common: hope and faith. Both films tell a great story: how two men (Leonard Lowe and Andry Dufresne) are locked up, and how both eventually finds redemption through friendship. While DeNiro and Williams are the stars of the movie, enough screen time is given to the staff & other patients too, which is good. I found myself being excited, watching Leonard Lowe interacting with different people, and how they feel for him (and the other way around.)

The movie raises a handful of questions, including how our society is today; for example, how some people forgot what it actually means to live, that some people take too many things for granted. This film works very well on a thought-provoking level, as well as on an emotional level. The ending will be very divisive (which I won't spoil) but I came to appreciate it more and more after repeated viewings. Ultimately, after watching it for the fourth time, I couldn't think of a better ending.

Probably the best emotional film I've ever seen (along with Shawshank). The film doesn't have a single cheesy scene, and it has some important underlying themes - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Alien 3 (1992)

With a debut film as terrible as this, it's astounding that Fincher's career didn't get flushed down the toilet

[4/10 · 25 March 2011]

Alien, along with it's sequel Aliens, set the bar for horror/suspense movies pretty damn high back when they got released. They were regarded as classics on the date they got released, and both of them are still regarded as such today. Alien relied more on atmosphere while Aliens was more rich on action. But overall, Both of them masterfully captured the look, touch and suspense of a real alien film, the kind of ingredients that Alien 3 was thoroughly lacking. Even Alien: Resurrection was better, as it did offer fast-paced action, but of course lacked the originality of the two first. The third installment didn't have a single redeeming value, except for the visual experience and one or two tense scenes. The prison world was so creative and well made, I couldn't help but wonder how good this movie could have been if Ridley Scott or James Cameron had returned to direct it.

At least it's a relief when you think of all the wonders Fincher have given us after Alien 3. But how he could screw the project up that much, remains a mystery to this day. The film had stupid characters, bad film editing, cringe-worthy script and lame action sequences. I can't recall the last time I saw a film where the characters literally made me facepalm. Sure, people died in horrible ways, which in itself was a minor success. But I didn't care about any of them. Most of them were just in the background most of the time and had a few lines at the most. Also, the relationship between Ridley and the guy at the start were so painfully bad, probably the worst thing about the movie. So, why not kill off all the survivors the avid fans would love to see in this film while you're at it? In short, this movie got turned into a crapfest.

The third installment is, without a doubt, a failure. But still, the big bad alien that kills people in horrible ways is always a pleasure watching, and then there's the beautiful prison setting. Yep, that's basically the only two reasons to see this movie if you ask me.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 6.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

A stone-cold classic, and one of Oldman's many great performances

[9/10 · 12 March 2011]

There's nothing negative to say about Dracula, except for some overused special effects at the beginning, but it is luckily only a minor issue. The list of positive things to say about the film, however, is big. Bram Stoker's Dracula is an absorbing experience. The cinematography's great, everything visual about the film (except for some overused special effects) is pure eye candy. Francis Ford Coppola truly got it right. Make-up and costume design add a lot to the atmosphere as well. All of those ingredients creates the masterful atmosphere of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Gary Oldman proves once again that he is one of my favorite actors of all time. Dracula might be one of his 3 best performances ever, and that says a lot. Anthony Hopkins as Abraham Van Helsing was a good performance too (and sometimes amusing). Winona Ryder pulls off a noteworthy performance as well.

It doesn't have enough entertainment value to have you glued to the screen for it's entire running time, but it's atmospheric chills, great screenplay and a terrific performance from Gary Oldman should be more than enough to get your attention.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

The Expendables (2010)

The whole Schwarzenegger-Willis-Stallone sequence alone is worth the price of admission

[9/10 · 12 March 2011]

"The Expendables" might not have been everybody's cup of tea, but it certainly was mine. A few scenes seemed out of place, notably Jason Statham's personal life. We didn't get anything like that from Stallone nor Li, which seemed so awkward, since Statham was just a sidekick to the story compared to Stallone. That being said, this film was nothing short of awesome, especially on the big screen. The Expendables had just the right blend of action (lots of action) and great humour. It features an all-star cast with the likes of Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Stone Cold Austin, Mickey Rourke and cameos from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. And everybody (except the cameos) are kicking ass like never before. Seeing all of those old farts back on screen in the very same film was a pure pleasure. The Expendables is a tribute to 80s action films; nothing more, nothing less. And a fine tribute it is.

Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Sin City (2005)

Like reading a virtual comic book - filmmaking at it's very best

[10/10 · 21 February 2011]

Style and substance works equally well here. Sin City is probably one of the most impressive movies I've ever seen in terms of cinematography. It has the look and touch of a real comic book film; watching it is almost like reading a virtual comic-book. Actually, everything visual in the film is spot on, right from the editing to the direction. The film is just pure eye candy, and I seriously doubt that any comic book adaptation, besides Burton's "Batman", will ever come close. While cinematography is not the only main ingredient for a comic book adaptation to be great, Sin City has all of the important ingredients it takes to be a great film, meaning you don't even have to be a comic-book fan to enjoy this.

For example a great supporting cast, with the likes of Michael Madsen, Elijah Wood, Benicio Del Toro, Jessica Alba, Rosario Dawson, Brittany Murphy and Josh Hartnett. Pretty much all of them are providing great screen presence throughout the entire film. The lead roles carry the show perfectly. Despite Mickey Rourke stealing the show, Clive Owen and Bruce Willis deliver brilliant, arguably career-defining performances. The powerful narrative from both Willis, Rourke and Owen adds a lot to the atmosphere, and (on top of the cinematography and direction) makes you feel that you are actually part of the film.

Sin City is hard and brutal. It is a pure comic book movie, yet it feels so realistic, both to look at but also the reality portrayed. I found myself rooting for the characters, and feeling sympathy for them despite their dark nature. To add the cherry on top, the screenplay was perfect.

Art movies usually fail because they lack a certain amount of entertainment. Sin City walks a very fine line between style and entertainment, and holds your attention for two and a half hours, without a single dull moment. There's basically something for everyone to enjoy (except for minors, or for the faint of heart), but for those of us who want our comic book movies rated mature, with great writing, intriguing plot, unforgettable performances, excellently portrayed realism and absolutely terrific cinematography, this film is a milestone in the history of comic book adaptations. I love this movie, and I am truly looking forward to Sin City 2 & 3.

One of the best comic-book movies ever made - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.

Machete (2010)

Favorite movie of the year. Am I Kidding? No

[10/10 · 19 February 2011]

I had been waiting for this movie for three years...and it was, without a doubt, worth the wait.

It all started with a fake trailer in Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's "Grindhouse". Being a major fan of both directors, I've had the pleasure of seeing and enjoying all of their movies, including their double-feature, "Grindhouse". However, what caught my attention the most was the two-minute fake trailer Robert Rodriguez had crammed in. "What an awesome addition to this double feature" I thought. I mean, putting a fake trailer in Grindhouse starring Danny Trejo, one of my all-time favorite bad-asses, on a revenge trip with his precious machete, accompanied by a priest carrying two sawed-off shotguns? That trailer was an awesome idea. And when I found out shortly after that Rodriguez was gonna make a feature movie out of it, it was already at the top of my list of "highly anticipated movies". And finally, I went to see it in theaters back in December 2010. Not only did it live up to my expectations, Machete probably exceeded my expectations in every possible way.

I'm not ashamed to say that this was one of my favorite films of 2010, as well as one of my all-time favorite action/comedy movies ever committed to celluloid. It's corny, messy, entertaining, brutal and over-the-top-but-in-a-good-way, real (m)exploitation style. Most important of all, it's amusing. I can't recall the last time I laughed so hard watching a movie. Ever since the 90's, Danny Trejo have always been one of those guys I'd watch in a horrible cheesy movie, just because he would star in it. Also, I love when film stars are nice to their fans. Having watched a lot of his interviews, Danny Trejo is probably one of the kindest actors out there (ironically, the mean guys are always the ones who are nice to their fans.)

Danny Trejo plays the title character Machete, a role that was meant to be played by him. No Mexican actor could ever pull this off as good as Trejo did. He is undoubtedly the star of this movie, and it shows. He is amusing, entertaining, and radiates cool in every single scene. Then there's Cheech Marin, who plays a priest (and Machete's brother). He is perfect for the role, and is equally cool and amusing in addition to Trejo. Steven Seagal is also one worth mentioning, who plays the villain (his first villainous role ever). Then there's Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Lindsay Lohan and Don Johnson (probably his best role since Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man). The characters they portray are really, really cheesy, but in a good way! It is purely intentional, alas self-parody. I'm impressed they got DeNiro to play one of the villains. They truly picked the right actors for the roles, I enjoyed every second of their cheesiness. It takes skill to play characters so much over-the-top as the actors in Machete did. In short, saying this film is lacking a decent cast would be a fallacy.

The plot is what you would expect from this kind of movies (pretty much identical to most comedy/action flicks) but that should be pretty obvious, and is by no means a drawback. Who would've expected a genre-defining plot anyway?

I can't describe in words how hilarious and refreshing this movie is. I never thought Rodriguez could make a movie as fun as "Desperado" but I was wrong. There are so many memorable one-liners, and we get a lot of ass-whooping, gut-spilling and comedy (combined). The entertainment value is simply top notch. This is hopefully just the beginning, for here is one major fan who is truly looking forward to "Machete Kills" and "Machete Kills Again" as suggested at the credits. There's not much else to say about this film, it doesn't really have a deeper meaning (thank god) or anything that requires your brain to work properly.

So, why did some people hate this? They probably got turned off by what they thought to be "political propaganda". Haha, can you believe it? You know Rodriguez got the job done when he successfully offended at least a handful of people. This is clearly a self-parody, and mocks people on both sides of the border. People shouldn't get offended by this at all, and if they did, they just saw the movie from a wrong perspective. To me, it just sounds like an excuse for having no sense of humour. But heck, to each his own I guess. The avid Rodriguez fan should have nothing to worry about.

One of the funniest and coolest films in years - Moose finds this film worthy of a 10.