When the first trailer hit the net about a movie call social network and it's was associated with facebook I was shock. But nothing shock me more than David Fincher. Fincher a great director and responsible for one of the most influential film in movie history "fight club" was going to make a movie about facebook. Before the movie was release it had perfects scores all around the board in the new York post Lou Lumenick call it "Quite possibly the first truly great fact-based movie of the 21 century" I was intrigue but when you here that in Washington post Ann Hornaday said "The Social Network has understandably been compare to "Citizen Kane" in its depiction of a man who changes society through bending an emergent technology to his will." I couldn't not believe what I was reading it sounded a bit implausible.

How can a movie about facebook receive a score in rotten tomatoes of 97% and metacritic a score of 95 % . The movie was declare one of the best movies of our generation and even compare as the godfather of this era. Sadly it took me almost two months to see the film. When I finally watch the movie it hit by surprise how great it was. David Fincher always manages darker themes but nothing is darker than the human mind in this case Social Network was no exception in the attempts of making something pure of facebook a lot of hatred was in it. Mark Zuckerberg performed by Jesse Eisenberg was a persona that was as cocky as you can get but his attitude wasn't intentional in my opinion it reflect that he was a visionary and knew what he was creating it was going to be the future. After this movie Jesse Eisenberg will not be compare to Michael Cera ever again he proves to everyone that he can act and do complicated roles. But the surprise for me was Justin Timberlake as fail actor in my opinion after this movie he showed some skills and also demonstrates that you need a good director to work with.

As far the script goes it mayor selling point of this film, in a few word it's perfect. From the excellent dialogue and how the movie is structure it is pitch perfect no question about that. But what gives film the greatness and recognition it deserves is David Fincher you feel passion in its direction. A few directors have this passion for the movies they create, other have lost their way and only work to cash in a check.Fincher always uses a sort soft green filter that gives the movie a sort of grim atmosphere and tension. What I fined odd about the film was the music it was always there. Only certain scenes dint have the music score. Bottom line is David Fincher created the impossible one of the best movies in the last five years and it was based on facebook. As Fincher did with fight club in the last decade, he created a masterpiece of our decade.

Roman Polanski has been know all his career for doing movie with high tension and giving a powerful endings sadly ghost writer feels like a homage not like the real. With that said this is one his best movies in recent memories. I dint really like the Pianist,for me it did not felt like a proper Roman Polanski movie. Although the movie won him best director but he couldn?t pick up the award because he would have been arrested and send to trial. If we come to think of it the British Prime Minister represents his own reflection in a sort of way. The story unfold around the ghost who is played by Ewan McGregor his job is to finish the job of previous ghost that was found dead on the shore of the beach. From that point on it starts to built suspense and doesn?t give many clues about what is happening you feel something is really odd. That suspense is a trademark from Polanski he slowly built up and delivers a solid punch line at the end a revelation worthy of the Polanski name. In this movie he delivers let?s say a medium rare ending although is a solid ending by any means it doesn?t feel as powerful as Chinatown for an example. The acting is pretty solid for the most part, Ewan McGregor give a very solid performance that feels more of the same from his previous movies. That is not a bad thing but I wish he could have embraced the character even more. On the other hand Pierce Brosnan had little time on screen but you felt his charisma all the way. Acting was solid throughout the whole movie but the real problem with the film was the screenplay it felt a bit short on character development and plot. You wander around the beautifully directed scene but it doesn?t really happened much. I understand the slowly bursting tension, but it needed more revelation to become a true Roman Polanski classic.

Bottom Line: Sure The Ghost Writer is a good film no can deny that fact but it wasn?t great. The reason I recall one of Polanski best movie in recent memory is because he goes back to its routes. Back to movie like Chinatown that you really feel dread and hopeless at the end. Sadly The Ghost writer is only half way there it needed a better screenplay to become something special. But is always a pleasure to see a great director like Polanski back to the screen.

Youth in revolt one of the most depressing films, I have ever seen and is also one of the most rewarding. Expressing the common tale of the underdog a guy starting to grow up to achieve his dream girl is a very simple metaphor that is about taking risk. But truly makes this film different from the rest is its execution. Although it doesn?t has the best director, but the director manages to make the film work. But the true revelation of the movie is Michael Cera, Cera one of few actor that don?t need to do much to work in a film a finally show everyone that he got skills to act. His split personally removes him from does pathetic moments in many of his film and makes it film fresh and rewarding. The incidents that happen through the movie are almost unbelievable but belivable.Cera pull some crazy stuns like burning a whole town down so he can get what he wants. That cheer dedication mix up with his split personality makes this movie very rewarding. Although it doesn?t do the justice to where this movie comes from at least is a fine print that can endure as funny yet intelligent film. Cera in this movie was escaping from himself of being that typical nobody and mark him as a decent actor that can become more.

Alice in wonderland is a film I have waited years to be made, since I heard Tim Burton was the director and Disney the producer I as many felt doubt. Why? well Burton is recognized for his dark tone story,alice in wonderland in fact is not a normal story, it has many gloomy and mysterious character but considering Disney only makes kid friendly movie with a few exception (pirate of the Caribbean 2 and 3) it makes me wonder one thing how can a volatile director craft a movie that will appeal with the fans of his movies and please the producer. After year or so waiting for the first trailer I was amazed by visual splendor the movie offer, sadly it couldn't see in the big screen but now is in blue ray I got the chance to finally view the film. In short my first impression this film is a visual masterpiece in the first 20 minutes inside the film you feel attach to the world around with the breathtaking cgi and amazing art director that makes avatar look like a silly Pocahontas wanna be in space. But I already knew that from the trailer as the story develops its feel simple and predictable but people misjudge this film in many aspect that surrounds it. The reason is people don't see Alice in wonderland true color and form. The film represents the common teenager taking a step forward adulthood and does that marvelously. Here you can feel Burton is inside the film itself working backstage to keep that theme alive and running. Every mayor character or persona inside the film represent a reprehension of Alice dreams and fears. You can see that Alice is not the Alice we read about in the books or saw in the original film is a woman that needs to make a decision that will mark her life. Bottom line Alice in wonderland may not be the best film ever made but its visual and underline theme makes it a truly special in its own right and proud to have the Tim Burton label.

George Romero one of the key pieces to the foundation of cinema in his own way has created big masterpiece, Night of the living dead was the first and arguably one of the best zombie flicks ever created. Then ten years after dawn of dead consider his best film and 1985 a decent effort with its low budget day of the dead. After many years he has make a few more movie for an example land of the dead, that can be visualize as the evolution of the zombie genre but still not perfect as previous movies it showed that zombie can also develop a mind of their own, a good tasteful premise that makes it an intriguing entry. Then catastrophe happened, after the release of movie like cloverfield Romero try to enforce that style to zombie flicks and fail miserably. Its acting was as bad as bloodrayne itself and the development of the film was ok but still pretty common. There were no surprises or weird twisted ending to help for the cause it was a lame movie with documentary style that was it. I myself dare to state that this movie should not be part of the dead saga, because it doesn't live up to the status quo of previous films. Bottom line is George Romero tried be someone that he is not and fail miserably if you're a fan of the Dead series you should stay away from this entry period.

It has been a long time since I read this on any website," the most shocking film in the history of the Cannes film festival-Anita Singh, The Sunday Telegraph" there were a few directors in my mind and one of the was Lars von Trier that always manages to find controversy one way or another he never fails in that aspect. When look up the film and reviews from the people and critics that where finding their way out theater I saw many interviews. Most of the critics agree in one aspect of the movie it was well directed, but most of them felt shock by the mutilation of the movie and consider Lars von Trier to be a sick person and in need of medical attention. With that in mind you can presume what it is about to come. To start many people ask themselves why the title? Why Antichrist? Is it a satanic movie? I presume most of you are not quite familiar with Von Trier work you see he puts nature as evil and mischief almost in every movie that he makes. In this case is no exception. By satanic he is referring to the pagan gods of nature. You can see that through symbolism inside the movie, one clever example is when the dying fox says ''chaos reigns", that the voice is done by Von Trier himself. Another point that many people will ask is if the movie is watchable to general audiences? The answer to that is no Antichrist as all Lars Von Trier film is an experimental one taking bold moves in almost every corner. The last half hour is the most exhilarating ride I had in very long time but nevertheless shocking as you may expect. Those familiar with his previews work will know one thing and one thing only Von Trier movies has to extreme nothing in the middle either you love or hate it to death nothing more. As a loyal admirer of cleverly done cinema I find myself in the corner of the love category, with nothing corny inside the movie its portray and abstract way of presenting itself its truly remarkable. As all critics agree the movie is spectacularly directed and the main female protagonist Charlotte Gainsbourg was worthy of a Oscar nomination but sadly as many of Lars von Trier film dint get any nomination because of his brutal and crude style. But she dint care she won in the Cannes film festival best actress and that is the most prestigious award in films. Bottom line Antichrist is a movie that changes the horror genre on its own terms it explore the evil subconsitious part of the human mind and connects it with its nature.If that sound right up your alley and have stomach to view it well give a try you might be find yourself impress for its artistic value.

Schindler List is acknowledge as one of the best movie ever made based almost by everyone but sadly I must defer. It brilliant movie in terms of structure, visuals and cinematography but sadly the performances that were presented in movie were good but not believable Liam Neeson in his role gave his best performance but still it felt a bit stale in terms of emotion. I am not criticizing him by any means, quite the contrary it is a fault in direction. Steven Spielberg director of many great films tends to lack in one factor and that is leading his actors in the right direction. Apart from that the script is solid and it is a well pace film that will maintain anyone who is looking for good cinema entertaing.Bottom line is Schindler List is a good film in almost every way but sadly the lack of emotion makes it solid but not perfect.

Simplistic and a bit dissapointing.How to train your dragon comes with a clever premise and idea that feel welcome in the animation gerne.But the predictable dialogue and lack compelling character makes it feel a bit uneven for its own good. 3d technology was implemented to the film but it doesnt feel out of place is among the few that truly maximize this advantage. When it comes to story its simple yet utterly intriguing, The main character lives in small Viking village that is attack by dragon all the time when you hear about this premise feel familiar yet uncommon. The narrative is solid but the dialogue gets in the way of making this movie special. Overall How to train your dragon is a film that could have been the next big thing in the animation genre but fail to live up to stature of movies like Up and Ratatouille.

Is JVCD the resurrection of Van Damme???

In the early 80 and 90 action films mix up with martial arts were the hip of the time.Through the years people went to see this movie to get excited and impress by moves or amazing fighting scenes. That was the million dollar industry of that era. Throughout the years people started to develop more expectation for these sorts of films and wanted more and more each time. Sadly many of these films didn't deliver the quality or picture that the people wanted from the films; they were basically more of the same. Why? well the reason was that most of them where low budget therefore depended in a simple script and actors willing to keep doing the same thing over and over again, you can apply here the term "that is your thing" for these actor. Some of them were Steven Seagal ,Wesley Snipes, Jean Claude Van Damme and many more. As the years passed time went harder and harder for them to make a movie that reach the theater. The last movie that Snipes makes his last day view on theater was Blade Trinity that was pretty mediocre compare to the standards of previous movies. But Jean Claude and Seagal it has been around 10 years since they have made a movie that reaches theater. They both move to home entertaining system that is basically your direct to DVD and movies for tv, ect. Snipes wasn't far behind.



When you come to look the action movies mix up with martial arts movement it coming to a closure sadly many actors will have to adapt to the new system or stay on the home entertaining system. As years go by Jean Claude had less and less movies on the local rentals and you wonder what happened to the good old Van Damme. Recently he did a picture call JVCD the titles seem stupid but don't let that fool you. Is the first time he is back in theater but only in limited release as most fine art movies. When you see the trailer you feel puzzled because with the trailer you can acknowledge that is not an action film is a full complex drama mixed up with a bit of action.



When I get to see the film; the premise feels like Dog Day Afternoon all over again instead of bank is a Post Office even one of the burglars looks alike to the burglar with Al Pacino on that movie. When they film starts to develop you feel really intrigued by the great production values and camera angles. I was thinking this is not Jean Claude it can't be. Well I let the movie run and notice this more like an autobiography Jean Claude life mix up with a robbery that is pretty common premise for a movie. I felt really impress by one thing and one thing only I am not talking about the production values or the script, I am talking about Jean Claude Van Damme's excellent performance. Near the last minutes of the movies he does a monologue about his life, aspiration, hopes, problems and dreams. You feel shock because it is so sincere and natural that you can aspire that all of that was coming directly from his heart not from the script. Also a plus for Jean Claude was in the monologue all was filmed in one shot you can see something different about him. A side of Van Damme that we never seen before that he is more than a simple mix martial arts character in this world, he can make dramas also. Another curious thing about the movie is that it contains some aspects of his life like when he was hooked up in drugs and had problems of getting custody in court. When you see moment where portrayed as the ones you have in your mind when you are remembering and reflecting some deep moment from your life.This is the best performance from a martial arts actor I have seen in all my years watching films. The monologue it was so sincere, so natural that you didn't feel you were watching a movie you felt you where having an actual conversation with Jean Claude Van Damme. With that said Jean Claude Van Damme has reclaimed his formal glory and become something much more and more diverse that what he was in his previous life as a actor. My hopes are up for Jean Claude I have hope that inside of him there is light once more, for that and many reasons this movie deserves your attention and affection.

People see film to be entertained and forget about life for a bit. Other go only for thrill of what going to happen next, others go to fell in love again with their couple. But there certain crowd that growing increasingly this few years this crowd goes to the theater to be blow away not for big explosion or insane car chases. But With imaginative clever design that is rarely shown every year 1 included in this group. Every year few movies cause that impact on this people last year was Slumdog Millionaires, the year before Juno the incredible story of pregnant women trying to live life as simple as possible. This movie captures the attention and imagination of millions not because of heart pumping action, laughter or anything between. The reason is so simple clever writing and excellent direction that so few can achive.This category movies are view like art not like a piece of entertainment. Back in 2006 a movie emerge from nowhere, it came from the most unexpected places. That movie is called little miss sunshine. At first it looks like different movie with no impact that was fairly common in this time, it took the theme of a dysfunctional family that isn't a common theme for many reason. One of the reasons is not so easy to elaborate but that wasn't for screenwriter Michael Arndt, many say that it was taken from his life and that all character where from there he, himself confirmed that when he won the Oscar for best original screenplay. Little miss sunshine went and sold 100 millions worldwide, in the united state it sold 59.8 million , from that standard this movie sold really well because the movie budget was only 8 millions and it was sold to fox search line for 10.5 to recover all it production money. But no one expected to be such a success this movie was nominated for 4 Oscars of those it won 2 of them including best original screen play and best actor in support ion role and many more prizes. This movie was so sucefull for many reason one was the excellent cinematography, the great cast that all of them where Oscar worthy and from my stand point by far was the best movie in 2006.
But what make this movie truly epic was the sincerity in part from all the cast, especially the conexion between the grandfather andOlive hooverthat you can feel the bond between the two of them.
Also Steve Carell give and outstanding performance he demonstrated to everyone that he can make comedy but he can excellent piece of dramas. The direction in this movie was truly outstanding it unique feels is like nothing you ever seen before. The original score of the movie give it a flavor and taste that was truly remarkable. To sum up little miss sunshine is by far the best movie of 2006 it was worthy of every it was nominated but sadly the academy are more commercial than true critics. This movie taught us something that we don't to see picture of phantasy or adventure to be truly amazed like most of the people think. But the true story that causes an impact in our heart hearts are the ones that comes that come from the real life mix up with some clever ideas that to me is little miss sunshine is one of the best achievement in cinemas history.
--mr.clicho