Nick J.'s Movie Ratings - Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Ratings and Reviews

The Hangover
The Hangover(2009)

Great humor, perfect cast, great story, and amazing acting. My only regret is that the second time you watch it, it is really bad.
With interesting characters, the movie grabs my interest using its profound humor and great script. Not visually interesting. Although, there were some parts that I didn't feel to listen, because I was enticed by the camera work. Of course it's no ''Children of men'' (7 minute tracking shot), but I enjoyed this thoroughly.
Bottom Line: Storywise, scriptwise, characterwise: amazing. Visualy: Left a little margin for improovment.

Crossroads
Crossroads(1986)
½

Extremly well done. When I was watching this, the time just flew by. Seriously, the music is great, the performances are awesome, and the final battle gave me chills. It's defiantly a must see, in my opinion at least.

I'm curoious as to see your opinion, because I'm not actually sure how many of my friends have seen this. So, yeah, check it out, or if you've already seen this, let me know what you think :)

Toy Story
Toy Story(1995)

Probably one of the greatest pixar movies ever. Well, for me anyway.
This is my chilhood, literaly. I would watch this as well as the second one about 5-6 times a day.
Extremley well animated, especially for it's time. I say that this as well as the second toy story movie are the best (behind finding nemo)animated movie ever. Like I mean it, ever. You can't get pixar quality. And that's not just animation, I mean their ability for storytelling
Overall: A faithful, memorable, and a basis for a good childhood.

P.s: Dear parents, show this to your kids. Make this the childhood that they need.

Space Jam
Space Jam(1996)
½

To say that Space Jam is bad dishonours how bad the film really is. I'm not going to lie, I loved this film as a kid. I though that this was one of the coolest, funniest films ever made. I took a look at it again, and, well let's just say that I didn't think the same way about afterwards..

Just read the RT summary for petes sake! That otta sum it up for you. My work here is done, enjoy.


''Although at first glance it looks like a movie dreamed up by a marketing committee (and in some respects it probably was), Space Jam actually defies... Although at first glance it looks like a movie dreamed up by a marketing committee (and in some respects it probably was), Space Jam actually defies the odds against it to become a dazzling display of family entertainment.

There's a kind of demented genius to the idea of casting NBA superstar Michael Jordan in a live-action and animated movie costarring the beloved characters from Warner Bros.' Looney Tunes cartoons. They play off each other like seasoned veterans of vaudeville, and Jordan never falls into the kind of awkward, amateurish showmanship that you might expect from a sports idol. He's comfortable in the cartoon land of his costars, who include Bugs Bunny and sexy newcomer Lola Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Elmer Fudd, Sylvester & Tweety, Speedy Gonzalez, the Tazmanian Devil, Foghorn Leghorn, and Yosemite Sam.

They've all been hijacked to an outer-space amusement park run by the Nerdlucks, who strike a Faustian bargain with the Looney heroes: if Bugs and Co. can defeat the Nerdluck "Monstars" in a basketball game, they'll win back their freedom; if they lose, they'll be doomed to stay there forever as enslaved entertainers.

So they kidnap Jordan as their coach and "secret weapon" while the nefarious Nerdlucks suck out the basketball skills from such stellar victims as Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing. It all leads to reckless abandon on the basketball court, and Bill Murray pops in for some hilarious support. Combining traditional animation and computer-generated Nerdlucks with its live-action cast, Space Jam was made in the anarchic spirit of the Looney Tunes cartoons, where anything goes as long as it's funny and off-the-wall (or the ceiling, or the door, or the floor...). Technically astounding, it's also witty enough to entertain adults and kids alike''

Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3(2010)

I think that Pixars animation has gotten a lot better over the years, and because of this, I think that the cinematography can't go without an award. I mean if you think about it, they didn't really have stuffed animals in the first two, because the animation that they had limited them to plastic figures. But now they can do that, and the life like designs and texture are just another example of that.
With a second sequel, you have to make sure that the characters and the plot threads don't really seem familiar. That's why I really like this movie, because it introduced new characters, but even though it had basically the same story, the plot threads were a lot different.
The only problem that I had with this is that there were a few cliches that were kind of cool, but still cliche. Like the bear for instance. We see him as cute and cuddly, but pfft. We know he's going to be evil. There is also the little scenes where they get into trouble, but they are saved at the last second. Now, I don't exactly know if they were satirizing the little tiny cliches, but if they were, they kind of took it too far.
As a die hard movie/Pixar/Toy story fan, I expected a lot from this movie. And it was everything that I hoped plus more. In fact, it wasn't just a child's movie, it was mature enough even to be for adults. It's a genre blending film, and it's one helluva ride to be on it.

The Room
The Room(2003)

For gods sake, just don't see it. Tommy Wiseau's bony ass is stuck in my head for ever. The anoying dialogue, the terrible acting and the almost paper thin plot just gives me a headache even thinking about it! I thought, since the Nostalgia Critic though it was entertaining shit, that I would give it a watch. After 10 minutes, I said to myself: ''Why?'' Just over and over again. There is no point to showing Johnny buy flowers. There is no oint having 3 SEX SCENES BEFORE THE 27 MINUTE MARK. There is no way that I'm going to give this movie a watch, unless I'm forced too, in which case I will gladly commit suicide.

Stay away, from this, do you understand me? Just please don't watch this, save your sanity.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope

A little overrated, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good film. It;s got a great story, and interesting characters, and really good special effects, but not just for their time, it still blows my mind being born in this generation.

What I mean by overrated is I thought that the story and the awesome factor would be better. It's still awesome, but it's boring and repetitive at somepoints. I don't remember everything, but what I can remember is that it's definantly worth a watch.

See it! It's not essential, but it's still a good watch.

The Social Network
½

You may not understand all the technical jibber jabbber, but of course you'll be able to understand the depth of, what else other than, facebook. Before Facebook was invented (admitted you have a facebook account.....admittedly I have too), Mark Zuckerberg was sitting in his well light bedroom after getting dumped by his girlfriend thinking ''What the hell am I going to do tonight?'', as if he wasn't even upset. That little event caused one of the most expensive companies to come to life.

The story concerns Mark Zuckerberg, played by the suprisingly excellently cast Jesse Eisenberg. He is a student at Harvard, and the opening scene is of him getting into a really really fast argument with his girlfriend, resulting in him getting dumped. He goes back to his dorm room and he decides that he is going to drink a little bit, and ask his friend, played by Andrew Garfeild, what some sort of..rating thing...and....well I don't know anymore. The rating thing is for a website where you compare 2 girls together to compare their faces. More technical jibber jabber, and the website become so popular that it crashes the network. We cut back OUT of the ''flashback'' to find that Mark is being sued by Andrew Garfields character. They go through the story, more is revealed, dialogue is well spoken, and the ending comes around.

Did you know Facebook is worth 23 billion dollars? Yeah, that's a lot of money for a group of people that just sit around ''wired in''. I suppose, like Transformers, there is more than meets the eye. Unlike Transformers, The Social Network actually makes sence. Even with the technical dialogue.

The interesting dialogue is accompanied by FANTASTIC performances, including one by one mister Andrew Garfield whos performance is on my top 10 list of favorite performances. His charisma was so believable, especially during the climax. Jesse Eisenburg, who plays the lead of Mark Zuckerberg, was perfectly casted and did a damn good job of acting in this film. If you haven't seen the real Mark Zuckerberg, then search him up and compare the two, it's actually kind of creepy how much they look alike. I was actually suprised at how good Justin Timbelake was...I expected something terrible, because of his terrible music, but he was actually really good in this film. I guess it's because he started out as an actor.

My favorite thing about this entire film is how good the cinematography was. It was dark when in needed to be, and it was bright when it needed to be. I actually felt like I was at Harvard, and it looked just fantastic. It felt like a sophisticated place to be, and this made for a very good film vissually. I swear this is going to win an oscar for best cinematography. If it doesn't, then the winner better be a helluva good film. But things brings me to my next point.

With EVERY Fincher film I've seen latley, I've expected so much, especially after seeing Se7en which is one of my favorite movies of all time. I expected beautiful camera work, but instead they were mostley just static shots. I have to admit though, they were very pretty. The composition was very nice in a lot of the shots. But still! Little to no movement really pisses me off. At least have something!

If you've seen this movie, you'll know that they talk really really fast. I know the explanation for this, but I still don't think it's a good enough excuse. At times I couldn't tell what the hell they were talking about, and what they were saying. This proved to be EXTREMLY annoying, so if you do go see this, a heads up in advance.

Wanna know something cool? There are twins in this movie. They are 2 seperate actors. Whoa! Wait, I didn't tell you the cool part. They have completly different faces, but in the movie, they cut out one actors face and pasted it onto the other actor! They did this seemlesly! It blew my mind when I found that out, because they look so cool, and realistic!

I suppose that this is truly an amazing film, and it some ways it is. The lucid atmosphere is intoxicating, and the performances are so believable that I thought I was watching a documentary, and the cinematography, well don't even get me started. It's not going to be on my favorite film list, and it certainly won't be even if I watch this again. But for the time being, it is so far one of the best films of 2010, being as good, if not better, than Inception. I still prefer Inception though.

As with most movies nowadays, I expect a very annoying 3-D expirience. Maybe even a far stretched premise, or maybe even an overuse of explosions, or just plain being unfunny. With this movie, we get a clean, crisp, interesting film filled with pretty much everything you can imagine: Good performances, interesting characters, a topic that we are all curious about(admit it...), an extremly well structured script with good dialogue, and exceptional visuals.

What else could you ask for?

Donnie Darko
Donnie Darko(2001)
½

Unlike most movies today, this movie is intentionally a mind fucker, playing on the issues of time, love, and just total insanity. I hate to sound like I'm just coughing up the RT consensus, but this movie is full of completly new and original ideas. I think the coolest part is ''Frank'', a psychotic bunny that tells Darko to do whatever the hell he wants him to do. This leads to a lot of really interesting scenes. That, combined with the excellent cinematography and the excellent direction from Richard Kelly, it's just a really fun movie to watch. This is kind of like Inception, or I should say Inception is sort of like this: it fucks with your mind and you can say the ending to anyone without ruining anything what so ever.

The story concerns Donnie Darko, quite a weird child. The opening scene is of him talking with his family, and the funny thing is he may be psychotic but he has a helluva time interacting with his family. Donnie is played by Jake Gylennhall, one of my favorite actors. Anyway, Donnie sees Frank that night, and he tells Donnie to go to a golf feild, but during his sleep. He sleep walks to the golf feild and wakes up. When he comes back, he realises that a jet enging exploded and it landed on his house. No one was hurt, but it landed on Donnies bedroom. Gee, Frank really seemed to come in at the right time, eh?

Since Donnie is psychotic, he feels that he owes subconcious debt to him. This leads him into a lot of bad situations, like taking an axe and smashing the water pipes at his school. The parents blame it on literature... Specifically Graeme Greens ''The Destructors'', which was very well done, to their credit. I won't give too much away after that, but there is a timer running after every little bit, counting down to ''The End''. Which is more than just the end of the film. Can't say anything more.

This film plays intelligently on time, relationships, and also psychological impacts of seeing a bunny named Frank everytime you fall asleep. I think that was a really good theme to play on, but with that said, I think the execution could have been a little bit better. Let me explain:

If they wanted to play on the theme of time, or the passing and going back in time, they could have exgerrated things. I think that way the screenwriter would have a bit more to work with... Don't understand? Well if you have low key scenes with a low key theme, then the dialogue would be average. With that said, the theme could have been more exageratted, and the screen writer would know what to write about.

So I think after this movie, Jake Gylenhall is definantly one of my favorite actors. His sister, Maggie Gylenhall, isn't. She's also in this movie, and she wasn't all that great. I think she's used to having a bigger role, and she was jelous of her brother (it's a joke. but she was pretty bad in this).

So, in other news, I just totally lost my mind, and that's partially the reason that I'm writing this review so weirdly. I take little breaks in between writing paragrpahs, I don't know why, but when I looked back, I read the paragraph about the screenwriting thing? It makes sence if you think about it, but you REALLY have to think about it. If you see this movie, then you won't be able to understand it.

Other than the fact that it screws with your head, it's just really dark. Like really dark. A little too dark for me. I suppose it's supposed to be creepy, and I definantly get that vibe, but after a creepy scene, they cut too something else vibrant and bright. Nothing TOO wrong with this, but I think they could have handled it a little better.

It's not a masterpeice, by any means, but I think that the audience quickly grasps into the characters, but not so much the story. That's great; in this movie at least, since it's more of a character studie.

There are a lot of philosophical things in this movie. Like at one point in the movie, since Donnie has something wrong with him, he is in some sort of speical class, where they learn to divide up actions into 2 categories: Fear, and love. This pisses off Donnie, as he complains that it's more complex than just 2 emotions. There are a lot more, but I think this review is long enough :)

The bottom line is that it's a creative, somewhat well handled extremely mind fucking movie. You should see it for sure!

Boyz n the Hood
½

I really like this movie. It's fun, it's heartwarming, and I love the characters. It's filled with not only great performances, but pretty much the only good movie that the director has ever made. It's a good movie, but at one point it just gets really really predictable. I don't like that. Not one bit.

Still, the one thing that pops out the most for me is the characters. I don't even think it's a character study, it's just like a city study with the characters inside. It also helps that they are acted out by amazing performances. My favorite is from Laurence Fishbourne, who looks young, fit, and gives a spectacual performance with the rest of the cast following close behind.The script as well is great. I don't know how well they handled the story, I think they made it really predictable, but the dialogue is nice.

I know everyone is going to be like ''This is such an insparational film!'', but it's not. The only thing it inspires me to do is to stay the hell away from violence. A bad message. If it even is a message.

I'm probably not giving this film enough credit, but it's still a really good watch. Give it a try, if you haven't already seen it.

Alvin and the Chipmunks
½

Okay, I'm not going to lie, I actually kind of enjoyed this movie. It's bland, and predictable, and Jason Liegh is just okay, but there are some moments I actually found funny, but still, not really worth much. If you're 12 or under, go see it. Other than that just don't.

G-Force
G-Force(2009)
½

Just an overall pathetic movie. Really dissapointing, not that I had much to expect. Pretty much just bad slapstick after bad slapstick. Don't see it.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

The film itself is a new type of art work. I can see a lot of Hitchcock in this, I don't really know how. Maybe it's because of the POV shots in the film. If I say that a movie is 10 out of 10, I really mean it, for every single reason that there is to like a movie: it's entertaining, it's got heart-warming quotes and performances, and a very compelling story to go along. I can honestly say that this is going on my favourite movie list and it's always going to be there.

The story concerns a very handsome man named Jean-Dominique Bauby in a hospital because of a stroke that he had. He also cannot move any part of his body except his left eye, and that's the way that he communicates. The nurses go through the letters of the alphabet and he blinks every time they go through the right letter that he wants to put into the word, to make a sentence. What's funny is that Jean-Do(what they call him in the movie)had a contract with a publishing company (because he is a writer), but was excused due to reasons of stroke. Jean-Do, being a man of excellent respect and continuity, decides that he wants to write ''The count of Monte Cristo'' with the main character as a girl. How will he do it? By reminiscing on memories, and blinking his eye!

Going through a blindingly beautiful movie of memories, heart shattering, beautiful visuals, great acting, and amazing direction, the audience feels compelled to the story right away. I don't know how, but I think it's the opening scene. We don't know what's going on, and neither does Jean-Do. I think that's one way that we can identify with the main character, and that's probably one of the most important thing to me in a movie. If you've read my short review on ''No Country for Old Men'' then you'll probably realise that I don't identify with the main characters very well.

I regret to tell you that this movie did not win any awards in North America for Best Foreign Film because the director was born in New York. Well, I don't much care for that, but I think that the director is a genius, composing complex imagery with a compelling story. I think that even though the story isn't too complex itself, it quickly gets shifted into the reminiscent complexity of the main characters life.

Now, to be honest, it really shouldnt be a 10 out of 10, I think it's more of a 9.4 out of 10. This is like the Citizen Kane of foreign films, but even Citizen Kane isn't tottaly perfect. In this movie, there were a couple of moments of repetition, and frankly, there was one or two moments where I just wish that the scene would just end. During the POV of Jean-Do however, I didn't want to go away. It was beautiful. It was probably painful for him, but for us it was a spectacular treat.

The performances in this movie are very well done. I don't know the actors name, but the father of Jean-Do was absolutely amazing, and by far the best performance of the movie. All the other actors are not far behind. Even though Mathieu Almaric (I think that's his name) had to just sit there for the majority of the movie because he was in a wheelchair, I still think there was a certain subtlety to the way that he just stared into blank space for a lot of the time.

Also, the characters themselves are very interesting. This movie was based off of a true story, but they probably stretched it a little bit. The characters were probably not as sensitive as in the movie and probably not as angry sometimes. I'm not complaining, in fact, I'm praising these characters. Whoever thought of them was a genius, because they blended anger, sadness, happiness, and depression to an all around heartfelt story, until the end, which I won't give away.

Overall, a brilliant treat for entertainment and a good way to feed your critical eye. Defiantly worth watching.

Inglourious Basterds
½

I'm ashamed to say it; I gave this movie a bad rating before. When I first watched it, I was just starting to get into films, and I had no attention span. I re-watched this a few months back and never took the time to re write the review. This is one of my favorite movies, and I cannot bring myself around to say anything bad about this.

I don't remember this movie as well as I should because I watched this a long time ago. But, with what I've said, and the fact that Tarantino is my favorite director and that Christoph Waltz is one of my favorite actors, you shouuld be able to tell that I like this.

Jonah Hex
Jonah Hex(2010)

Aside from the fact that this wasn't loyal to the comic book whatsoever, it's just dumb. Within the first 20 minutes, I'm not going to lie. I actually started to enjoy it. I mean, the cinematography was good, Josh Brolin was dark and looked decent as Jonah, and the action scenes were decent. But the biggest problem of the 30 minutes I enjoyed was the fact that there was no conflict. It was just Jonah Hex going around killing people looking cool while doing it. I swear to god, the second that he brought back that dead guy, I laughed and said ''Fuck this!''

Yeah, at that moment, I set my expectations really really low, and was not dissapointed by the result. I admit, there are some witty times, like when that guy tries to approach Jonah and the guy says : ''Hey what happened to your face?'' and before the guy finishes his sentance, he's thrown back by a gunshot and Jonah says ''What happened to yours'', as if it wasn't even a question, it was just an interjection to be more intense.

The story follows Jonah Hex, obviously. He's played by Josh Brolin, who in my opinion, is actually really well cast. He is a bounty hunter, who kills for money. Those 2 sentences (excluding the one about Josh Brolin) is 30 friggen minutes! Anyway, when the conflict is FINALLY introduced, it's about someone named Quentin Turnbull, who killed Jonahs family while Jonah was watching, tied down. He killed him. Or at least he thought he did, as he finds out later that he is still alive, working on a weapon to destroy a nation. Why? Because he's ''ruthless'' and in a really crappy movie.

As the story progresses, we get a hint of Megan Fox, who only really serves as eye candy. I mean think about it, ''Jeniffers Body'' wouldn't have sold so much if it wasn't for her. Same with Transformers. Still, she only has like 10 minutes of screen time, and to be honest, it was bad.

Also, I didn't like the way that they made this, like all together. You know how in some films they have like this really intense moment, then when you know something else cool is going to happen, the just cut to black then go to another scene to make the audience figure it out for themselves what happened? Well they do that. A lot. In fact, they do this way too much. Half the time, when I think there is something really cool going on, they cut it, but they cut to a long talk scene! What the hell?!!?! I mean if you're going to make it an action movie with talking scenes, at least make the action really cool. Which brings me to my next topic.

The action scenes were actually pretty decent. That's the reason I'm giving this 40% instead of 30 because of them. Of course, they forgot to bring a tripod to the action scenes, just like ''The Expendables'', but to be honest, it wasn't that bad. They were really entertaining, and cool to watch. Like in the opening where he hits his horse, and it jumps, then 2 gatling guns come out and Jonah goes wild on the towns people.

Other than that, it was just really boring. The conflict was really dull, seeing as how the setting was so cool. It takes place during the civil war, just like the comic. That's pretty creative, and since they changed the comic book so much, they should have come up with something a little more interesting. A little orange ball ''bomb'' that can destroy a nation to dust? Really? That's the only reason that Jonah had to fight him?

Oh yeah, and they tried to make it seem artistic too. When Jonah gets shot, he pictures in his head a 1 on 1 battle between him and Quentin. While doing the fight in real life, it cuts in between the fake one too. If Jonah gets shot or something, the dream Jonah gets hit in the stomach by Quentin's cane. If Jonah hits or shoots Quentin, then dream Jonah will hit him back. Who cares? They wasted so much time on character development, but we still don't care. I don't care if Jonah wins! He's an asshole, and any message about standing up for yourself is just terribly drowned out.

This movie pretty much took every single western movie cliche and squeezed it into this movie. You got one liners, you got mono e mono, you have the dark past, and a lot of others that would take me forever to list. If you've read any of my other reviews, I HATE cliches so much. This really ticked me off because within the first 20 minutes there were so many cliches that I wanted to stop it right then and there. It was predictable and boring! I watched this with my father, and he was a big fan of the comic books when he was a kid. He was super pissed off at that.

He was never supernatural, and I'm just wondering what gave them that idea. He is a cowboy. A good fighter, a modest man, and a killer. He was not a friendly person, and he sure as hell could not bring people back from the dead for a short period of time. Dumb asses.

But, yeah, I kind of enjoyed it. It was a really really bad movie, but there are a lot of things that a decent about it. Like the cinematography, it matches whatever tone the film was going for. Also, I don't mind some of the one liners. They were cheesy, but good. Of course, it is dumb, and it isn't worth the watch, but if you're in the mood for a wild time with little to no intelectual value, this might be the movie for you. If you are in the mood for something dark, then this is the movie for you. But don't expect creativity, in the most modest way.

Now, I'm going to end this review with one of my fathers favorite quote from the actual comic book:
'' He was a hero to some, a villain to others...and wherever he rode people spoke his name in whispers. He had no friends, this Jonah Hex, but he did have two companions: one was death itself...the other, the acrid smell of gunsmoke...''

No Country for Old Men

Although this is action packed, full of suspense, well acted, well written, and has a solid story, I just find something wrong with it. I don't know what it is. It's entertaining, but I guess I'm part of that little percentage that doesn't like this movie. The Cohen Brothers have made yet another masterpiece, but have failed to give a good impression on myself.

Hot Tub Time Machine

Honestly, this is the first REAL comedy movie I've seen in a while. As a whole, this movie is really dumb, but it's really funny at the same time. To me, a comedy has to be funny the whole wat through, and that's exactly what this is. I especially liked seeing the cast members when they were back in time looking at themselves from the past, I thought that was cool how they all grew up to be those actors! Now, I want to get something strait. I HATE John Cusack. He was in 2012(which I utterly HATED), and that made me hate him x2. But he was actually really good in this movie, and so was the rest of the cast.

Like I said, a good comedy has to be funny the whole way through, but it also has to have interesting characters and plot twists. It doesn't have GREAT plot twists, but it certainly has everything else. The script is raunchy, but hilarious, and a great time. I think the ending was sort of a copout. I wish something better could have happened, it feels really unsatisfying, and for that I could only give it an 80%.

The story concerns 3 best friends, played by John Cusack, Craig Robinson, and Rob Coddry. John Cusack has a nephew who just sits in his basement and does nothing. When Rob Coddry's character tries to commit suicide, John and Craig decide to take him out to the ski resort that they had gone to way back in the 80's. Of course, the nephew tags along, and Rob is pissed. Anyway, on the way there, Coddry reveals that he brought in a bunch of booze, and one russian energy drink(I think) that is banned in America. After a fun night of partying, they wake up to find it's the 80's again. To make sure they don't screw up the future, they have to play out that night exactly the way they did it. It's really hard not to give spoilers after this point.

They even have a cameo from Chevy! It's funny because HE was funny in the 80's (sort of)!

I think that the setting, and the time period really make for a visual expirience that could only be improved on from the directors camera work, who really knows how to direct a comedy film. Because this was set in the 80's, it was colourful and sort of nostalgic. I didn't grow up in the 80's so I wouldnt know much about it, but it was still really cool to see the bright flashyness of that time! Even though they looked like freaks...

The acting, in my opinion, was freaking great! I love Rob Coddry! He's actually really good, I mean I've never seen any of his other movies but he seems to have an alright track record, and to be honest, I can see why! He has such charisma with his character. If someone else were to play him, I wouldn't have like this movie so much. He was perfectly cast! The rest were just behind him. John Cusack was pretty good, Craig Robinson was just as good.

Still, with all the positive things I'm saying, there are a lot of things that are wrong with this. Like the fact that this is so stupid! I mean a Russian Energy drink would mess with the circuits of a hottub, but it would not by any means send you back in time! That's just annoying and frankly that made the film hard from that point on to watch. Also, what's with everyone being such a spazz in that time period? Was it because they're teenagers? I don't really like that stereotype and again I found the teenage characters really annoying.

But, for what it's worth, it's fun to sit through. Yeah, I know, it's getting destroyed by critics but I still like this. While it's def. not one of my favorites, I would reccomend this to any of my friends that want a damn good time without caring too much about quality.

Final Verdict: Annoying, stupid, but colourful and hilarious!

Amélie
Amélie(2001)

It's more than a movie, but a work of art. It's touching, beautiful art directed, well acted, imaginative, so original, and extremely well written. Jean-Pierre Jeunet, you are my god.

There are so many words to describe this movie, and I can't decide which element is my favorite or which is my favorite word to describe it.

The story follows a shy young waitress with a very simple yet somewhat complex personality. She is so imaginative and colourful. One day, she finds a box full of old toys, but she finds it in an unusual place inside her flat. So she decides to find the person that owns the box, and she figures that if this person is touched by this nostalgic memory box, she will become a regular good-doer. Already I'm enjoying this.

Through a very good sequence consisting of cause and effect cause and effect, she finds a man that she feels that she cannot approach, but instead leads him on a confusing chase. I'm not going to five away the rest.

I think that aesthetically this is the single most beautiful movie I've ever seen. The colour scheme, the cinematography, the creative editing and the lighting all work together to produce a sad, happy, or whatever mood the movie wants to create. Simply mind blowing, they sent shivers down my spine and sent a tear down my face.

You see, I think that film is an art. If you do it right, then you are an artist. Rather than concentrating on just the story rather than the visuals(the godfather), artists should be able to create their own story through their own camera work, and cinematography.

The performance from Audrey Tatou is simply mind blowing. She is so subtly with the way that she speaks and moves, combined with Jean-Pierre Jeunet's heart warming, fluid direction. You know what I realized even though it's pretty obvious? She always wears red on her somewhere. It's an obvious indication that she is a relatively happy person.

It's also very entertaining, by story and characters. I especially like the creepy guy that just sits and stares at all his former loves because he's jelous. He made me laugh throughout the whole movie and I kept saying to myself while watching ''What a creep!'' in my head.

Now the audience while watching this should think this is very funny and touching. You love the characters, and you would want anything to happen to them, but when tragedy strikes, you almost break down crying. The opening scene alone should capture your attention. If you're looking for a good, touching film with a very interesting, visually impressive movie with a good story and great performances, I would definitely recommend this.

By far, this is one of my favorite movies of all time, and there is a reason for it. 9 out of 10.

Despicable Me

Let me get this strait before you read this review: this movie is hilarious. If you havn't seen it, then go see it now, in 3-D. Okay, so I'm giving it a lot of praise, but why did I only give it a 60%? Well, to be honest, the story seems to start in the middle, and has no clear begining. Also, I didn't really like the message, I thought it was over done and too familiar. But, because of the really good script, the funnyness, and the voice acting, it's not too bad of a film. It's an entertaining, fun family flick. I think the funniest part was the credits(no, I'm not saying it's bad). The little yellow henchman tried everything to reach you with awewsome 3-D graphics!

The story concerns Gru, a failed scientist villian that gets compared by everyone to one of the best scientist villians. They both want a shrink ray, so that they can use it for their own good. While going to the ''Evil Bank'', Gru finds out that he needs to do something truly evil to get the loan so that he can do something TRULY evil. SHRINKING THE MOON! Yeah as you can plainly see I'm not good at explaining plots, but it's a lot less mature then this. Anyway, as the story progresses, he finds out a plan that can get him the moon: children! selling cookies from door to door! plating special robot cookies in the boxes so that they can steal the shrink ray! Blah blah blah. I won't ruin the ending, but as predicted by basically anyone who can read a synopsis could tell, the fatherly thing from the children grows on him. AWW.

So, like I said, the story seems to start in the middle for me. I didn't really like how it started as Gru already had a plan. I would have liked to see a little bit before that, like how he became a villian(but not just through flashbacks). I mean, it's an alright story, don't get me wrong, but still, it feels unsatisfying. Although it's a funny story, I don't think the humor lasts throughout the whole time. There is a lot of slapstick, a lot for the kids to enjoy, but not much for the adults. I don't mind that, but there has to be some sort of an intellectuality for the adults while still keeping the slapstick for the kids. Also, the message is really bland and predictable.

The script isn't TOO bad. I mean it's kind of bland. It's nice to have some interesting quotes, but most of the time it's just boring conversation about funny topic after one another.

The voice acting, in my opinion, was phenominal. Steve Carell had such charisma, and while I don't think they were using him to his full potential, he still gave a damn good voice. And a really suitable voice for the character too. He didn't seem to over do it, while some of the other ones did, like Jason Segal. I didn't mind him, but I wish he had just been a little bit more low key. Either that or tone down some of his script.

The animation was great! I don't normally like dreamworks, just because I'm more of a pixar fanboy, but this was great. The cinematography and the dark/light tone of the animation complemented the film greatly. I guess I should talk about those little yellow pill shaped things. They were kind of annoying. Like I know what the filmmakers were trying to get at when they put them in there, just to sort of add some more zany humor for the kids. For me they were just annoying. Plain and simple. That's what they are. Plain and simple.

I don't really like reviewing movies that I don't like too much. I think that the rating alone for the movie can stand out alone for itself, rahter than me explaining why I think it's just okay. That's why my reviews are either really high ratings or really low ratings. This movie is just okay, and that's why I didn't really like writing this review. But it's a fun movie, and I can't reall complain, I mean other than the annoying script, Jason Segal, and the halfbaked message, it's not a bad film. I kind of like it, but as a whole, it's not all that great.

Whether it is nobler to love, or to see this movie, I don't know. Proabably to love. That's Shakespear, right? I don't know I'm just quoting a commericial here. Still, what I'm going to leave it at is that except for Jason Segal, the script, and the message it's funny. And that's just enough for me.

The Silence of the Lambs
½

''I ate his liver with some fava beens and a nice kianti.''

Jonathan Demme's ''The Silence of the Lambs'' teeters on the line of psycholigical thriller and horror, and it blends together perfectly. I really like this film, and there are a lot of reasons why. For one, the story is amazing. I don't think that even nowadays we could come up with a story this creative with such interesting plot twists, and that's something that makes it unpredictable! Secondly, Anthony Hopkins was amazing! The performance was so great, like, beautiful almost, even though he is a serial killer. Jodie Foster was also perfectly cast, and she did a damn good job of playing the detective. Finally, I like the direction, cinematography, and the editing. Those 3 things put together make a damn good film in EVERY single way.

The story concerns Clairence Starling, as an FBI agent in training. Her boss, Jack Crawford, really seems to think she has potential, so he sends the rookie to meet Dr. Hanibal Lecter, played by the perfectly casted Anthony Hopkins. He is an INSANE psychologist. Hannibal is nicknamed Hannibal the Cannibal, for obvious reasons. Clairence asks Hannibal if there is any links between him and Buffalo Bill, the new serial killer around. Since Lecter is a psychologist gone mad, he can only give hidden tips to Clairence. She must decipher them quickly, to find who and where Buffalo Bill is.

I know that I don't really explain stories very well, but there are A LOT more plot twists and interesting moments then just that. It's also sort of a mind boggling expirience; I've always been interested in psychology, but this movie has made me seem sort of scared of becoming one. I mean, it's just a movie right? But Dr. Lecter is completly nuts, and I would hate to be like that.

I'm normally not into crime solving movies, but like I've said before the line between psychological thriller and horror is very well blended together, with very bleak and disturbing imagery. It's a powerful movie, it's changed my mind quite a bit. Also, I think that, now, I have a lot mroe respect for Jodi Foster, because to be honest, I don't think she's all that great of an actor.

Jonathan Demme, well known for not only this, but the depressing hit, Philidalphia, is a relativly fresh director. His camera work is very smooth and refreshing, and I haven't seen camera worklike this in a movie since Rear Window. I can kind of tell that's where a lot of the insparation of this film came from. Now I understand the quote ''The best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never directed!'' which is a very well known quote for suspensful films.

I know that I've said this quite a few times in this review, but Anthony Hopkins is amazing! There is awesome, and then there is AWESOME! As a young teenager, I feel like my senses need to be tuned with, and the emotional depth of his performance really made me feel like I was in the dark atmosphere of the film. I can't remember what the name of the actor who played Buffalo Bill was, but he was really good too. You could tell that they both did a lot of research on serial killers.

The atmosphere is very attractive. I think that the cinematography is very good as well, that with the camera work and the sets is very nice. Also, I don't mind the editing, it's just sort of generic. I think this was more of a film that tried to play on sort of the dark tone of the film, and it works. It's dark, it's bleak, and it's a damn interesting way to watch a movie.

I think the script was pretty cool, the dialogue was disturbing but interesting, and the screenplay was well written. Nothing much else to say really. Just, decent.

A few scenes that I didn't like was the scene where...well I can't really think of any. I know there was a scene or 2 that I didn't really think was nessesary, and they were kind of unmemorable. And if you say them, you wouldn't blame me.

Pretty much a near perfect movie. While I can't say that it's worth more than a 90% rating, I can say that there are many things to praise in this film. And it's for sure worth a watch, so go buy it now! or rent it....What ever floats your boat.

I'm going to end this review with one of the final lnes in the movie!

''I'm having an old friend for dinner.'' Get it?

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
½

''Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World''is fast paced, well edited, and a damn entertaining way to spend an hour or two. Balancing the perfect amount of romance, action, and humour, it succeddes on basically every level. I went to watch this expecting not very much, but when I watched it I was honestly dazzeld by the special effects used, even though they were so simple. Treating everything like a video game or a comic book can be tricky, but this film handles it very well. Also, I really like the music that the band plays. Is that weird?

The story concerns Scott Pilgrim, a 22 year old ''man'' with a 17 year old girlfriend in a band that almost tries too hard to be famous. Living in a little tiny shack across the street from where he grew up, he realises that he needs someone better than this 17 year old. When he goes to a party he sees a girl named Ramona flowers that just moved there from New York. He bombs. Badly. But he decides he isn't going to quit with her, as he quickly becomes aquanted with her and goes to her house to ''hang out''. One of the coolest scenes is when Scott is at Ramonas house and he accidentally walks in on Ramona and is forced to close his eyes. The whole reasont that Ramona went into her room was to fetch Scott a blanket. Scott has his eyes closed and Ramona says ''Is that better?'' and Scott thinks he has a blankett around him. He opens his eyes to see that it was really Ramona just holding him closley. They spend the night, and the first thing Scott says is ''Can I not be a one night stand please?''? That made me laugh.

The latter part of the film is just Scott trying to defeat Ramonas 7 deadly ex's, dealing with his band, dealing with his gay roomate, and all of this has to do with love. Near the end, he gets into all sorts of battles I'm not going to tell any spoilers, but it's a very funny and charming plot.

The only thing that seemed to remain neutral was the acting. Nothing special, but still not bad. Micheal Cerahas done a good job of becoming a socailly akward kid with little to know respect who always seems to end up getting a girl that it somewhat out of his league. This leads to a lot of repetitivness, which can sort of get annyoying. The girl who played Ramona is lovley, and is a decent actor with a big screen presence. Probably due to her fluxuating hair colours..

Edgar Wright, the director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, is a very well known and celebrated director. It's not very unlikley that he would serve in some sort of action comedy again. Still, it doesn't seem like his movies are getting very old. It still seems to bring back the classic action from comic books while bringing in modern style to the action. His camera work, on the other hand, is just okay. During the fight scenes I would have liked to see a lot more angles rather than just the camera moving around them over and over again. Like some sort of rapid editing.

I really like this movie. To me, this is like one of the most entertaining films I have seen in a while. There weren't very meany cliches in the story or the visual effects, or even the script, so it isn't predictable what so ever. Here is the flaw: the holes in the script and plot.

Does Scott Pilgrim just know martial arts? Or did he learn ir from somewhere? If Ramona was such a good fighter, why dind't she help defeat the other guys? Why didn't Scott own his own house? I mean did he even help pay rent?

The flaws in the script aren't too big, but I felt like I was on drugs or something, the tranistion from scene to scene were so weird I couldn't really tell if he was still dreaming or not. This led to a little bt of confusion and I didn't really like what they did with that.

And to be honest, it isn't like SUPER creative. I mean it's pretty obvious that he wins in the end, it's formulaic. I might have given away spoliers, but the name of the film is Scott Pilgrim vs the World right? So it's pretty obvious that he wins in the end.

I love this movie, it's very very fun. It's easy to sit through, and the latter part of the film is so enjoyable that you don't actually want it to end. The characters are so inviting, you root for them, you don't want them to leave the screen, or lose the battle. Another thing I find really cool is the use of special effects. If you've read my review for 2001: A space Oddessy, you'll know that I have a strong dislike for special effects. This movie, however, combines real life with these special effects so well that it feels like a live action arcade game, but a really good one.

Overall, almost everything is right in this movie, two thumbs up! Def. worth a watch.

The Expendables
½

''The Expendables'' is a bland, almost totally un-inspired effort that almost completely fails on every level. Given that Sylvester Stallone was the director, I wasn't expecting much more than a couple of action scenes and really good one liners. Also, given the impressive action star cast, I would expect some good ''action packed'' performances. What I got was a really awful director, akward one liners, and a bunch of over the top action scenes that nobody cared about. But, I didn't mind the whole script, and I thought that Jason Stathom was pretty good. The chemistry was great between Stallone and Stathom, but all the others seemed forced.

The story concerns a bunch of mercenaries called ''The Expendables''. Because of the awkward script, it's hard to tell what actually happens in the plot. From what I can gather, it goes like this: the mercenaries are looking for work, and someone named ''Church'' (played by Bruce Willis) contacts Barney(the head of ''The expendables'', played by Stallone) to tell him about a job in a little island called Vilena. The job being to take out a general that seems to be doing some bad stuff to the people. I think....They don't really explain it. The whole plot mostly revolves around the relationships between the expendables and the people they know. Well mostly just the people Jason Staham knows. But really, I lost all interest in the movie within 10 minutes because of the lack of an action packed plot.

Here is the biggest problem with this movie: we don't really care. I don't really care. I mean, the story is half baked and the plot is really dumb and over used, the script is boring, the only decent actor in this movie was Jason Statham(and Mickey Rourke), and I think Sylvester Stallone forgot to bring his tripod to film the action scenes. You think that someone would learn from past mistakes of action movies, as in Rambo. I have only seen snip its from the film, but this is on the same stupidity level.

The actors themselves aren't that great. I know that they are the stars of action movies, but that doesn't mean they're good actors. Mickey Rourke is too good to be in this movie, Sylvester Stallone fits right in to the stupid cliche, Jason Statham is pretty awesome, Jet Li is pointless, and Arnold Schwarzenegger's cameo was pointless but kind of funny.

Sylvester Stallone is the director(like I've said about 5000 times), and he really sucks. It's like he took every single action director cliche and he put it into one. The camerawork was terrible and extremely annoying. Now I know what you're thinking: ''How do you have bad camera work?It's either good or neutral.''. If it's not an action scene, every single shot is an extreme close-up, and the action scenes are way too shaky to see anything. In a good film, the camera work should be able to synthesize a point of view of a character in the film. In ''Saving Private Ryan'', the point of view is from a soldier in the war. In this film, it's as if we were sitting on top of a giant vibrator as an ant....

We barely ever get sucked into the atmosphere of the film. We barely ever get to see half the characters in action. We barley ever get to see some actual plot. We barley ever get to see anything for that matter. When we finally do see something good, it isn't even that good.

I apologize for the length of this review, but this film really ticked me off, and I really don't think this is nearly a good enough watch for an adrenalin addict. What I would have liked to see was a somewhat complex story, with awesome characters, and some decent editing, but all of those aspects are so bland in this film.

Overall, it rarely shows signs of inventiveness, entertainment, or even a good story. I would definitely not recommend this to anyone.

Batman: Under the Red Hood

While the animation takes a while to get used to(well, not a while considering it's length), this movie finally brings us back to the old school action without the dark complexion of modern day interpretations of the superhero. It's very entertaining with a wild story and interesting characters.

The story concerns Batman(obviously) as he tries to deal with a new criminal, named the ''Red Hood'', while still having to fight off the joker and past criminals. Basic. As he goes on, he realizes that the ''Red hood'' is actually someone he knows. I'll leave it at that, anything else would be a spoiler.

Damn you, Joe DiMaggio! What the hell did you do to Jokers voice? I know that he tried to model it off of the Heath Ledger emotion, but his voice just didn't match what he was trying to go for. Same with Batman's voice. I felt like it just didn't have the intensity of the old Batman. If you're going to have a nostalgic movie, make sure that the content is actually nostalgic. But, other then that, the voice acting wasn't too bad. Nightwing seemed to do a pretty good job, but is sadly subjected to crappy one liners that subtract from his voice. About Alfred, I think Michael Caine should have done that voice. I don't know why, maybe because I just think he had a relaxing voice. But he still did a good job in The Dark Knight, so I think a cameo would have been nice.

The animation(like I said) takes a while to get used to. But once you do, it's pretty interesting. It seems sort of lazy, as they don't spend as much time on the background and the scenery as they do the characters. Sadly, that sort of detracts from the atmosphere, but the very interesting script saves it from an unmemorable expirience.

Thanks to it's very good visuals to complement the story, the script would just seem to blend in, and sadly for one of the characters, it does. Nightwing has an amazing voice actor, and it's very suited for the title of Nightwing(who I grew up liking more than Batman and Robin). Ultimately he falls short due to crappy one-liners and really weird dialogue that seems out of place, but some of his lines are funny. Sometimes. Other then that, it's a pretty good script with an interesting story told in flashbacks rather than an actual straight linear story. Interesting transitions too, with very interesting characters.

I just like how unbelievably mature this is. It's not the 60's KAPOW style, this is bloody, mature fighting with death. Superheros are reduced to having to take profits from drug dealers and threatning mob members with guns to make sure that the drugs aren't given to children. While the complex character of each and every villian is portrayed, Batman feels that his greatest failure is coming back to haunt him. Yes, it's that complex that we actually have to develop a plot thread through the characters emotions. Awesome.

This is based off of the comic book story, so it's like the actual thing that happened. Well the back story is at least. Like Ra's al Ghul, he was alive for centuries because of a special bath that he used. It happened in the comic books, and it is used in here. The story of Robin being killed by the joker is in the comics, and is shown here. Awesome. Again.

Watch this, it's actually really entertaining. Trust me, it's well worth the short running time and the weird animation. Just don't expect it to be perfect.

Slumdog Millionaire
½

Creative and a treat for the eye and heart, this Danny Boyle film is a spectacular sit through movie. It's so beautiful, with breakthrough performances, excellent directoion, beautiful shots, interesting characters and a very heart tugging and warming story to boot. Easily one of my favorite(if not one of the best) feel good movies ever.

The story concerns a young man being interrogated after being extremly successful on the Indian version of ''Who wants to be a millionaire''. The host called the police, as he suspects cheating. The reason for this is the young man is from the slums, with no education at all. Throughout the course of the movies, the cops ask him how he knows the answers to these questions, and we get flashbacks of his life (in chronical order) explaining how he knows this.

Over the films perdiod, the main character deals with his brother, growing up alone, all balanced with romance. The film also serves as a very good social commentary on the slums, being involved in different situations and how to deal with problems. The simplistic version: it's interesting. That's it, the whole time I was thinking ''How could they come up with that?''. It's original, and so entertaining. The one thing that kept this movie from being perfect is that I felt that it kind of had repetition with the romantic ordeals. Still, that's such a little thing.

I can't remember all the actors but Dev Patel played the main character, and he was really good. My favorite actor in the entire movie was the one that played the leader of the ''gang'' that the main characters brother played. Everytime he was on screen I belived every inflection he made. A chilling performance to go with a chilling character. On to the next topic: characters.

The characters were a bit subtle at first, but with the air of the knowingly nice characters. The audience would normally be attracted to the characters. I know I was. I also found that they spent too much time on the main characters development, which was good. They made him a very deep, complex character with lots of layers. We know this because he seems like a pretty calm man, but when meeting his brother for the first time in a while (because of something bad that happened), we see that the main character grabs him and throws himself and his brother off of a building because of this anger. We then realise that it was all in his head. This indicates that he is too nice to let his gaurd down.

The visuals are so awesome in this. The beautiful composition of each and every shot is astounding, and mind boggling. The use of in camera effects, lighting and cinematography are so great. I don't know of a more natural beautiful movie. I have nothing else really to say. It's just great all around.

Suitible entertainment to go along with eye popping visuals. What else more could you ask for? Well it turns out this movie is also well written with almost inspiring dialogue and a very interesting way of portraying the plot. I've said that alot in my reviews, and there is a reason for it. I love it. I really look for a movie with great dialogue. With trailer made quotes and very controversial dialogue, this truly is a masterpiece.

Overall, this is a near perfect movie almost all around. Def. worth watching.

Run Fatboy Run
½

I don't care what anyone says, I think this movie has a very funny script with a charming story, no matter how familiar the characters are, or how familiar the message is. With a charismatic performance from Simon Pegg and Dylan Moran, it succeeds as a regular failure that results in some sort of off beat entertainment.

The story follows a man(played by Simon Pegg) as he runs away from his wedding while his wife is pregnant. Several years later, he lives alone in a downstairs appartment. Having his life in a mess and still being in love with his wife, he tries to redeem himself by spending time with his son. This immediatly fails as his ex wife gets a new replacement(played by Hank Azaria), who can actually finish things. Simon Pegg feels threatned as he signs up for the charity run that the new boyfriend signed up for, just to prove that he can do something, and potentially, win back the love of his life.

I'm really bad at explaining stories, but it's still very predictable from the small details I've given you. There are a lot of fat jokes, which don't come off very offensive. It's a charming movie, bottom line.

Simon Pegg was pretty good in this movie. Coming from Shaun of the Dead to this is a big transition, but ultimately, it's awkward. Somehow, Simon Pegg remains to be charming, but somehow loses his touch when they decide to bring physical exertion in to the story. The rest of the cast is alright, I guess. No need to explain them. Some were better than others, but still they weren't that great.

David Schwimmer(the director) is a very interesting director.This movie is his directorial debut, so I guess he put in a very good effort. It shows, as he used the interesting choice of a hand held camera for the movie. Very weird, too. It's good because it's an interesting way to see a comedy, while not inventive. It's bad because when there should be a really shaky scene(which might be good), they switch back to the tripod. Why? It would have been intense if it was shaky. Look at children of men, the whole movie was with a hand held camera, and it was awesome.

The audience should either really like this or sort of dislike this. It depends on whether they use a critical eye or not. Little tiny jokes including weight jokes, lazy jokes are actually enough to get a few chuckles out of it. The script is funny enough to keep the attention of the audience throughout. The story is familiar enough to have predictability, and so is the message.

Overall, it's a funny movie with predictability at it's best. But it's still pretty good.

A Clockwork Orange

My personal favorite Kubrick movie. An entertaining, social commentary on how we react with the world, thoroughly beautiful. This movie is not just a movie, but it's a work of art. Everything about this is beautiful, even the rape scenes due to the exellent juxtaposition with Kubricks slow camera work. Also, his use of one character being so complex compared to the other characters in other movies, it is sure to be super influential. So influential, that it will probably influence even Tarantino. That's right, this movie is so popular and strong, that the complex characterization is seen even in Quentins movies.

The Soloist
The Soloist(2009)
½

The only way to watch this is with a bottle of Tylenol and a pillow. It gave me a headache. It really did. That's how annoying I think that this movie is. I couldn't even sit through it. Despite the interesting premise, the plot is so un coherent and Robert Downey Jr.s character is so confusing and un realistic.

Based off true events, the story concerns a journalist that stumbles upon a homeless person that plays on a beat up violin that he seems to know how to play very well. As Robert D. makes the article, an old woman says that she was touched by this and gives away her cello. As the homeless man accepts the cello, he is reveled in nostalgia as Robert tries to find his parents, fix his past, fix his present, but he hates him. Secretly he ''likes him''.

Due to the script, however, we never actually care about the characters. They seem to be one dimensional, and to be honest, cheesy. Except for the homeless man, I really liked his character, and that's sort of why I don't totally hate this movie. He was the center of the movie, and also so complex and deep, even though he was mentally challenged. Diving into his past was a great ride, and very entertaining.

The subtle admiration from Robert Downey Jr. towards the homeless man is really awkward due to the sound editing and the semi detached direction.

The audience, if not using their critical eye, should pick up some themes about helping others and what not. This is entertaining, and the performances are actually pretty good. Although I think this movie sort of sucks, I really did enjoy Robert Downey. Also, if the audience doesn't like it right away, then the rest of the movie will be the same. There is different plot threads, but the same idea. The journalist tries to help the homeless man in different ways, blah blah blah, he secretly likes him, blah blah blah, the end.

Un coherent plots are a really big thing for me. So are cliches, but this is actually kind of original. Just the little things in each plot thread are too little. So little that the climax of the film doesn't seem so exiting at the time that we hit it. Then when it ends, we feel sort of unsatisfied.

About the headache that I got during this. I think that they tried to make some sort of stylized complex artistic story, but they utterly failed in the hands of the editors. The sounds are always really complex and loud, and sometimes there are sounds when there really aren't those types of sounds to hear. When I'm in a hospital, or on a busy traffic road, I either expect it to be really quiet, or somewhat loud. Not dead loud the whole time.

Overall, despite one good performance, the film falls short of what it was trying to go for because of it's sound editing, one dimensional characters, and a really weird story.

Predators
Predators(2010)
½

A very un-satisfying film, in everyway. The thing that really kills is for me is the miscast, especially Adrien Brody, he's just awful, and boring. Due to the direction of Nimrod Antall, the action scenes were pretty decent, compared to the rest of the movie. Movies like this, you would expect to be at least entertaining from the action, but not even that could keep my attention.

The story concerns a bunch of people that get randomly dropped onto an island, with only the clothes on their back and a weapon of some sort. No body knows who they are, or why they're there. With Adrien Brodie being presumably their leader, tries his best to keep them alive. Over the course of the story, we learn that the predators aren't the only ones considered predators, as they are hunted by humans which they consider predators.

There is also this really formulaic relationship between Adrien Brody and Alice Braga. It's obvious and really weird. In fact, the chemistry between the whole cast is really off. I really think that they had potential for their performances, in fact, I really like the actors in this movie, but due to a very bad motivation for the story, bad script writing, and bad chemistry, the actors seem to fall below expectations.

The whole cast is a miss. Topher Grace is full of one-liners, cheesy dialogue, and a really stock character. Adrien Brody is dull, stock, and full of corny dialogue that unfortunately takes away his ''tough guy'' image in the movie. Alice Braga shared the same amount of nothingness. She was the female version of Adrien Brody: boring, cliched, and stupid. The whole cast could have used some acting lessons.

This movie starts out bad from the opening shot. People parachuting to the ground. We don't know how, we don't know why, we don't get any sort of explanation. That's not the only thing that's really stupid about this, the costumes were so over the top that we could actually tell that there was someone under the costume. There so un realistic, and I guess you could argue that they were on a different planet that's why we weren't used to seeing something that strange, but really there is no suspenseful atmosphere that the film pulls you into. The way that they try to redeem themselves from atmospheric and story failures by bringing in Laurence Fishburne into it, to explain a little bit about the place they're on. That, as a result, fails as well. It adds a little plot twist, but really nothing much.

The script is filled with one liners, and that really subtracts from what the director was going for. Although this movie kind of reboots the franchise, they could have done a lot better. Even though this movie is just on the line of acceptance for me, I still couldn't help by being bored and laughing in the theater. There are a lot of really corny things in the movie. I know that I've said that but that's the thing that really kills thje movie for me. And Adrien Brody.

Overall, you should watch this movie just to get the experience of bad acting and really stupid costumes, with a stupid atmosphere that the movie tries to suck you into. If you're a movie buff.

2 out of 4 stars.

American Graffiti
½

A long time ago, in a diner just down the street....George Lucas was twisting and shouting while writing one of the best and most important and inspiring films of all time. Yes, it's true, before George was into Space Operas, he directed and wrote this film. And wow, is it amazing. A masterpeice, if you will. I mean, I thought it was chliched, but then I figured it out: This movie started all of the teen cliches. Like my favorite, the tough guy bully with a heart. God, I love this movie.

The story concerns 4 friends on their last night of before college, while celebrating their high school innocence. What could go wrong? Well, one of them(a nerd who everyone calls toad) is lent a car from his friend, giving him total confidence. He picks up a ''bitchin' babe'' and they go for a ride. Another one of them thinks that he has found love, but can't exactly find her, as he only saw her in the street. In another story, the tough bully drives around in his old dragster, looking for hot chicks to drive around, but while doing so, picks up a little girl by mistake. He is also looking for a street racer played by Harrison Ford. Keeping his image is tough, but he secretly is a softy at heart. Throughout the story, these plots a parallel to each other in conflict, as the futur college kids push on in the night.

Now, George Lucas is a better writer than director, and I think if you really pay attention to it you'll agree with me...All the shots are static, and I guess that was the only thing that they were accustomed to back then, but they could have had some sort of movement. On that note, I go back to the writing. I think that each and every sentance and sequence was thought out perfectly. It has such an intoxicating feel anytime someone talks. Again this started a lot of the teenage ''coming of age'' cliches so George Lucas must have really thought about what he was writing to come up with them. With that said, I think that the script is perfectly complemented by the story beside it.

The acting is phenominal. The performance from Paul le Mat was astouding, as the tough guy who just happens to have the same birthday as me(thank you wikipedia). The supporting cast have a subtle twist to them that just doesn't really work with me, that's why I think that Paul is for sure the best actor in the entire movie.

The audience should like this movie. I imagine them feeling sympathy towards the characters. They should be able to percieve the message, and what not, and really they aren't any complaints to this. This should be entertaining the whole way through. If you don't like this, I can't blame you. This movie isn't for everyone.

Basically, this is sort of a movie for story and script. George Lucas didn't really concentrate on the visuals, I guess he saved that for Star wars. Still, it would have been more of a classic if it could have spent a little bit more time on the visuals. If you look at my favorite movie list, you'll notice that the movies on their are all beautiful (or at least the majority of them are) because I really like to look at something pretty. Look at Citizen Kane: as well as this movie, it started a lot of the cliches about the genre, but it concentrated on visuals as well, and that's part of the reason it's so renouned as a masterpeice. Although I still do consider this a masterpeice.

Overall, I love this movie, and if you are a movie lover or a buff, then this is definantly the movie for you.

3.5 out of 4 stars.

I Love You, Man

I think that there will be a new cliche about ''slapyin da baiess!'' from this movie. If that's any indication that this movie is hilariouis, it's one helluvan indication.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
½

While not a masterpiece, I am going to praise the performance from Brad Pitt. The last movie I saw with him was Inglorious Bastards, and the switch was very akward at first. But once the story set in, and he used his smooth talking voice to handle the situations he was in I was hooked. I think that this was one of the best performances I've seen in a while. This, combined with the touching, complex story and David Finchers decent direction, this movie is close to what we would consider a landmark.

Now, one of my favorite all time movies is Seven, which was also directed by David Fincher. In that movie, the direction is amazing, and that's why I like it. That being said, I set my standards very high for this movie in terms of camera work. So, I put out my critical eye, took a look, and was severly dissapointed. The camera work isn't bad, but it was very, well, dissapointing! I watched Seven, praised the camera work, I read a review for fight club, said that the direction was amazing, I watched The curious case, and most of the shots were static. Why would he do that to us? I guess he was concentrating on the composition of the shots from the cinematography and the art direction and the set making, but that was them. David Fincher, what happened?

About the story. It was kind of cliched.... The night before watching this I watched Slumdog Millionaire, and one of the subplots is the relationship between the guy and the girl. The girl, however, wants to protect the guy by sending him out of her life. But, in the end, love prevails, and the girl and the guy end up reuniting and falling in love again. Now, think about this seriously. If I didn't tell you that this was Slumdog Millionaire, you would have thought that this was the plot to this movie(if you've seen it already). That's a big problem for me. I don't know if this is some sort of intertextuality of some sort, but there is too much of it. In that movie I was thinking: Seen that in Slumdog Millionaire. Seen that in A clockwork Orange. Seen that in like 3 other movies. That really upsets me.

Like I said, the performances really saved this movie from dissaster. Another thing that kept this movie from being all the way down there was the creative writing, storytelling, and premise. Now I know that this was based off of a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, but the way that they presented it was beautiful. I mean a man growing backwards? And a well written script to go with it? I mean, what else could you ask for? Also, I found this film very entertaining, even under the unsual circumstances that the story takes on. I think that the unusual circumstances that the movie took on were probably what made the film entertaining.

The audience during the movie catches on very quickly, and Benjamin Button isn't even introduced untill about 20 minutes in, but I have to say, those 20 minutes just flew by. But as the film went on, and on, and on...And on....And on....I realised that this film was too long. Even with it's creative storytelling and the rich performances it couldn't hold me for the whole length.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll do anything as long as you don't use your critical eye. In fact, don't even use your critical eye even if you have one. Jusst watch this movie for fun. Enjoy the characters, the story, the dialogue, the plot points, and the acting. You'll be sucked in to the films premise pretty much right off the bat.

I guess that's all I have to say about this movie... This isn't a masterpiece, but it's still worth giving a watch.

3.5/4 stars.

21
21(2008)
½

I'm kind of skeptic about this movie. If you ignore the bad acting and the totally unneeded drama, it's not a bad film. It's as entertaining as it is unimaginative. Maybe it's just because I like Kevin Spacey because of ''S7ven''. Or maybe I'm just a thriller fan. Man, I don't know, I'm so confused as to why I like this.

I mean, it's not even that good of a movie aesthetically, script wise, acting wise, but I do find myself particularly attracted to the story.

The story concerns a young man who is a geek but slightly attractive, who needs money for college. His friends are in a contest to build a robot, which for them, requires a lot of time for such little appraisal. He is great at math, and one day his teacher talks to him about counting cards, which of course, is illegal. At this point, I feel compelled to mention that the main character is extremely interesting, but bland at the same time.

The film definitely has it's moments, like when they get caught and the guys start chasing them. Which brings me to my next point. There is a HUGE plot hole in this scene, in which the main character works together with the cops to get rid of Kevin Spacey. Did I mention that this cop took all the money that the main character had from counting cards? Anyway, the main character has only one hope from escaping jail and that's to get rid of Kevin Spacey(like I said). The plot hole is that even though the cop took all the guys money, he gives it back in a attempt to be nice. Actually, now that I think about it, this isn't really a plot hole, just a stupid moment. Which this movie has a lot of.

About the audience. If you were watching this movie with a critical eye, you would know that it really sucked. Entertainment wise, without the critical eye, it's a pretty fun film if you can get past the stupid acting.

The script is sort of neutral, it's nothing new, it's nothing old, but it sort of blends in with the rest of the film. While the film is bad, the script needs to find a good place in the movie. The only place it finds is the line where the actors are at.

I like to think of myself as a bit of a rebel, but still really bad at math. No one can identify with the characters, and that's another flaw.

You see, a good film should have easily adaptable characters, that suck you into the story because you want to see the character overcome the problem in the story. However, if the character has no real human traits, then the character and the actor that plays that character really suck, and that's what I think about this movie.

Overall, it's a good film for entertainment, and it's got a pretty decent script. The problem for me is the acting and the script. If you can overcome that, it's not such a bad film. Give it a watch, I guarantee you'll find something you like about it.

Star Trek
Star Trek(2009)

I don't think that I'm the only one that doesn't like this movie. While watching it, I was thinking ''this is going to be great!''

The story concerns a young, rebelious, but smart, student at a ''space camp'' esque place. He is in training for a real space mission. When a training exersize goes horribly wrong (in the sense that everyone thought he cheated, even thought he finished it perfectly), he is on trial about to get kicked out of the camp. At that point, I'm thinking Starship Troopers. Remember when that guy quit the army, then really regretted it? Then he had to convince the tough, but secretly nice, general to let him back in. That's exactly what happens in Star Trek as well

Maybe that's just the typical cliche star movie.

It's not even boring. For me, I find it's lacking entertainment in the story. The action scenes are impressive, but they don't even keep my attention. In fact, they're why I dislike this movie.

It's just non-stop go-go-go action. I had to turn it of, and I never finished it. I'm glad too. I have to give J.J Abbrams props though, he did make a pretty good film. The whole reason I watched this movie was because he was a good director.

Also, I can't help but reference the show, I mean, in the show they would save like a species for extinction, or they would save some sort of starship in need of assistance, but no. They have to save the entire universe. Which kills me, and the movie.

The only good thing other than the direction was the acting. I can't really remember the names of the actors but the ones that were the main stars plus the supporting cast were excellent. 4 stars for them.

Another thing that I find wrong with this movie is all the stupid pointless cliches. In my head while watching this, I kept saying to myself ''Seen that. Seen that. Seen that a million times.''

My father noticed that I wasn't particularly into this movie, to which he approriatley responded: ''Do you like this, Nick?''. Obvious sarcastic remark. But then I told him that I couldn't watch this anymore. And I told him why. He could only think of a smartass response to the cliche problem. He said: ''Star Trek started it all.'' Which I broke out into laughter about.

If you read my review of ''2001: A Space Oddessy'', you'll realise that I really don't like special effects. Especially if a movie is over reliant on it (except in Avatar, that movie was decent.)

The Secret Life of Bees

A very charming meaningful movie about racism and how one little girl can change that. I think the entire movie is a metaphor for the one little thing that can inspire a chain link of events. I think the characters are interesting, the story is fun, and it's extremely entertaining, especially if you want a good cry(if you're sensitive enough to).

School of Rock
½

This movie is so funny, I've probably watched at least 10 times in the last year. This movie stars Jack Black. That's it. Do you really need to know much more now?

Night at the Museum
½

I don't really understand why this movie is getting such bad ratings. It's imaginative, it's funny at some points, and while Ben Stillers perferformance could have been better, it still prooved to be worthy of my time, and darn good for children and parents. Overall, it'a a funfilled adventure with little mistakes but lots of fun.

Reno 911!: Miami

This is why we have parental ratings, I mean this is so vulgar and the plot makes pretty much no sence, its just stale gags that are totally usless.

Iron Man
Iron Man(2008)

Robert Downey Jr. is oficially my favorite actor, and that combined with Jon Favreau's direction and a compelling story, this action packed flick brings the story of the comic books to the big screen with great success.

It's about a rich billionaire that works for a weapons manufacturing company. What's ironic about this is that he's the genius that designs these weapons. Cliche much? I mean this sort of sets up the next event that happens: he gets taken away by a terrorist group. What the director does next is smart. He takes away all of the main characters dignity and pride and puts it all into a machine, just to restore thar pride. I won't say much more, but the way that the film takes away different parts of the characters is brilliant.


The only reason that it's only an 8 is because to be honest, I think that the last action scene is sort of pointless. But even without that last scene, I think this movie is really good.

Auteur theory states that a director must go past the hollywood scripts given to them, to try and tell a different story of their own, and all other directors that just go with it (ahem, grown ups) are called ''metteurs-en-scene''. Sadley, Jon Favreau falls under that last categorie. The direction is decent.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
½

Obviously one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen. With a good story to go along, it's no wonder why everyone(including me) loves this movie so much. Also, with it's benchmark visuals and eye popping cinematography, it also serves as a standard rate of quality for most movies now.

Starship Troopers
½

A pointless, brainless exersize composed of non-stop action, a stupid story, and excessive violence.

Die Hard
Die Hard(1988)

Finaly, Bruce Willis is acting! You know, aside from Pulp Fiction, this is probably the best Bruce Willis movie I know of. It's ironic, it blends the happiness of the holidays with terrorism, and the comedy of the script holds it all together.
In a nutshell, it's about terrorism on the holidays and one guy trying to stop them. Now if this isn't the set up for something totaly awesome, I've lost all hope in mankind.

Strange Wilderness

The only thing funny about this is how pathetic and un-funny it is.

What Happens in Vegas

Cameron Diaz is as lovley as ever, but I hate Ashton Kutcher. This movie is so predictable, un-funny, but dramatically ironic, and that plus Cameron Diaz saves it from a potential razzie.

Unforgiven
Unforgiven(1992)

Intensly shot and with amazing performances from the entire cast, this shoot-em-up style flick directed by Clint Eastwood is one for the ages, and suitably entertaining.

Oceans (Disneynature's Oceans)

In my film class, we learned how to make a good documentary, with structuring, and using different shots to tell a different story throughout the basic plot of the real film. This documentary, however, just craps out the basic structure, and gives us a poorly structured, mixed up film with bad intentions.
For one thing, they show us an animal that we really like. For instance, the sea otters. They're so cute, and cuddly, and really interesting. Then they show us an animal getting caught and killed. Why would they do that?
While on that topic, they show us a really interesting fish, and really cool sea animals. But, then they show those fish getting killed by a shark, and the way it was shot was to indicate that the shark that killed the little fish was bad. Then they show us that shark getting caught by a fishing wire and killed. Are we supposed to feel sympathy for that shark after it brutally killed the little fish? Well, I'm confused by that.
Again, they want us to feel sympathy, so then they show the humans that killed the shark getting caught in a bad storm. Are we supposed to feel sympathy for them? I thought this was about oceans!
God, this movie is so mixed up, they can't even stay on the subject long enough for a suitable documentary.

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
½

Good acting gone to shame. I guess I can't complain, the film was made for kids, and it's sure to entertain them. It's predictability matches it's waste of hollywood money. Plot holes, cliches, and clumsy action scenes make this shamful harry potter rip off a waste of time. But it's entertaining for kids.

Finding Nemo
Finding Nemo(2003)

Beautiful and heartwrenching.

The Terminator
½

Bloody, entertaining, tottaly akward because of Schwarzenegger's performance, and aesthetically entertaining.
James Camerons direction fits very suitably with the fast paced never stopping action of the movie, and the epilogue is a satisfying conclusion.

Iron Man 2
Iron Man 2(2010)

Meh. It was good to sit through but asthetically I thought
that it was really bad.
You know, I sort of knew that the second instalment in the Iron Man series wasn't going to be that good. The only thing that was pulling me in was Robert Downey Jr. Even though he had a good performance, I can't help but thinking that this movie had good intentions, and the themes were about Tony Starks self sense of egotistic satisfaction, and his choices to turn his suit over to the government or think about his health, but then I realised, it's Iron Man. No point to it, no moral, just plain....well...KABOOM.
Overall, overrated waste of hollywood fx and Robert Downey Juniors Talent.

The Closet (Le Placard)
½

A very smart, fast paced, funny movie about issues confronting sexuality combined with the main characters personal issues.
I really like how the character sort of changes 3/4s of the way through, and he becomes a ''man'' even though he is treated like a woman in a mans body.
This movie is also very funny, but not just through dialogue but through themes and events. It's so ironic all that happens.
Overall, this is very smart, insightful, and a meaningful reflection on life.

The Road
The Road(2009)
½

Too dark my butt. It's dark for a reason, and it enhances the themes that the movie is trying to get across.

Every film has a point to it, and this one has changed my vision about the world and the way I treat people.

The one thing that I do have to complain about is the direction from John Hillcoat.
I had to do an essay on Stanley Kubrick, and he has really fluid camera work, and switching from Kubrick to this movie, I expected much more. Another thing on the visuals, I thought that the cinematography was really good. Withought the crappy FX that hollywood uses, this is a pretty damn good visual treat.

Overall, faithful to the book, sad, visually good, and meaningful to a point of a life changign expirience.

GoodFellas
GoodFellas(1990)
½

Colourful, interesting, well acted/directed, and I can still remember the main characters name.

WALL-E
WALL-E(2008)

A solid, entertaining peice of pixars wonderful sense of animation, creativity, and their ability to tell an amazing hearwarming story.

Monsters, Inc.

A well animated, solid if not amazing pixar feature.

Toy Story 2
Toy Story 2(1999)
½

A very good second instalment for the Toy Story series.

Disturbia
Disturbia(2007)
½

Blechh. That's all I can say. Rear Window has so much more to offer, even though they only changed the cast to audiences.
I think that since the character was put on house arrest, it made us un-indentify with the main character. Then there is the sex appeal, the brainless, personality less, awful actor who claims to like the main character.
When I watched this 3 or 4 years ago, I admitt, I liked it. But then I took a look at it again, and I think that the director really must regret making this.

Also, what is with that mother? I mean is she completley oblivious? She even noticed her son spying on the neighbor, but she did nothing, and she continued to go over there. I don't know what the hell kind of mother doesn't trust their own son.

THE COPS. CALL THEM. That's another problem with this, he never really bothered to do anything about it. Just bitch and complain.

Overall, it's not totaly harmless. It's east to sit through, because of the bulding suspense. Besides, I kinda like Shia LaBoeuf.

Holes
Holes(2003)

Very good adaption of the novel. Imaginative, smart, ironic, the story is everything that you would have expected from disney, but with the delicate wisps of adultness in the story. You know, this is probably one of my favorite movies, simply because it always has me at the edge of my seat while I'm watching it. Also, it keeps me sayin ''Wait, what?'' and since I know that it always has flashbacks, I know that I'll find out later. And bygod, I always do. And no matter what, I almost cry at the end because of the fact that everything came together for the kids.
Overall: Faithful to the novel, well acted, full of suprises no matter how many times you watch it.

Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Funny, smart, terribly ironic, and a definant Kubrick classic, and it serves as an effective cold war satire and also a very good reflection on how we react with the world.

2001: A Space Odyssey
½

Why did I not like this movie? Because I looked past the VFX. The only good thing about this is the themes that it's trying to get across.

I mean really, this is overrated. It's boring, and it's an insult to Kubrick. How is he supposed to use his genius if he keeps having to use VFX?

I have to admitt, although I hate the use of VFX in anything, they look damn good in this.

I only saw one trademark Kubrick thing, and that was when that guy was jogging. His fluid camera work is pretty much the only thing that I liked about this. Adnt he fact that there was such little talking, and when they did talk, it has such a big effect on the viewer because we hadn't heard them talk for such a long time.

I'm not entirly saying that this is a bad film, in fact, it's a wonderful film. It's touching, beautiful, but it's also overrated and boring. Kubrick's talent is tottaly gone to waste though.

I hate the fact that everyone is like ''Oh it's so good! Oh my god, its beautiful! I love it!'' then they go on about some element of the VFX that they liked. They're just trying to sound like they know what a good movie is, trying to blend in with the crowd. The people that do like this, like it because they like the message the movie tries to get accross.

In a late interview with Kubrick, he had stated that the meanining of the film could be anything that you want it to be. To me, the meanining of the film has something to do with god. I don't know what it is, but there is just something about it that takes me back to a sack-relegion theme. It's not tottaly making fun of religion, in fact, I think that the whole point of the film revolves around some sort of religion.

I had to do an essay on Stanley Kubrick. What I had to do was I had to make a 4 page essay on Kubrick, analysing 5 movies and his techniques, how his films have changed over time, and so on. I got a 95% on the essay. Here is what I wrote about this movie:

The next film that I watched was 2001: A space Odyssey. It's about the folly of mankind, and how it has changed. The opening scene is to create the set up, and the introduction to the humans, and to also show that we are not much different from animals. In an interview with Kubrick, he stated that he wanted the film to be mysterious, and to include little to no dialogue throughout the whole film, but also to let the music guide the moods the audience is supposed to feel. I also felt that this film was very bland (except for the visual effects), and it relied too much on the visual effects. I think that the opening scene is the only thematic statement in the entire film, and like I said earlier, the opening scene is to show the differences between human and mankind aren't so big after all. Stanley Kubrick also once said that the meaning of this film is allegorical, and it can mean whatever the audience wants it to mean. Kubrick did this because the film has no actual plot, so the meaning and the plot are allegorical to the audience's content. I personally think that the film has a deeper meaning than the folly of mankind, as it somehow has something to do with god. I can't figure out what it is that reminds me off god, or the search for god, but something does. Also, I thought that the editing for this was very new, and not clichéd at all. There was very good pacing, and the director/editor knew when to cut to another scene without having a crappy transition.

Overall: Look past the vfx and the themes, and go for entertainment, and look at the story. The end made no sense to me, and I couldn't figure it out for the life of me.

Full Metal Jacket

A great movie featuring stellar direction, meaningful quotes, and with a very good social commentary, this Kubrick flick is a genius addition to the kubrick collection.

Taxi Driver
Taxi Driver(1976)

A near perfect movie. It's meaningful, and thematic, the pacing that Scorsese creates and the tention that he builds with that pacing is astounding. Scorsese is a director, so he tells the cameraman what to do. That being said, I took a look at the camerawork, and I was not dissapointed. It was quite amazing, and that just adds to the story, because with the camera work (I'm using auteur theory here) we get more of a sense of tones, and effects. That way, we understand the characters a little bit more.

As for the acting, I was not dissapointed with that either. I'm pretty sure that Robert De Niro is my favorite actor now. I mean wow. Scorsese with DeNiro? A match made in heaven. I really like this movie, and I would definantly recommend this to all my friends that don't care about action.

Reservoir Dogs

Definantly my favorite Tarantino movie.

There Will Be Blood
½

Paul Thomas Anderson uses his genius carfully in this movie, and I think that I'm going to go crazy.

After watching some pretty bad movies latley, this has saved my from my near slip into insanity. I stayed up night after night, trying to think about anything that was wrong with it, but I couldn't.

What, with outstanding cinematography, amazing camerawork, intense story, and awesome acting, this not only succeds as a dramatic entry into Paul Thomas Andersons directorial carreer, but also a potential candidate for the national film base.

Rear Window
Rear Window(1954)

So few movies have inticed me into it's mysterious atmosphere. In case you havn't noticed, HITCHCOCK IS THE DIRECTOR. He doesn't write his own scripts, he doesn't come up with the story, or even tell the actors what to do. He just tells the camera where to go. While pondering this thought in my mind, I paid attention to the camera work. While doing this, I noticed that the camera never left the appartment that L.B lived in. This mystery is amazing, and the story qualifies for my top 3. So, that being said, I will give this a 9.5 out of 10. Just for being so interesting. That little .5 is because I don't really like James Stewart (I think that's his name), but Grace Kelly is still amazing in this.

Children of Men
½

Probably one of the best sci-fic movie I've seen in a while. I cannot, willnot, compare this to the new ''Star Trek'' movie by J.J Abramms. This movie can't even be compared to metropolis. This is definantly the better movie. I mean storytelling is one thing in a good movie, but the cinematography, the camera work, the acting, and the natural explosions add to the overall depressing feel that this movie gives off. Powerful stuff, man.

The Godfather

Words cannot express how I feel about this movie. So I'll just try my best to tell you the facts.
I like the characters, a lot.
I think the acting is amazing.
I like the way that the story keeps going in different directions, so it's not just going on and on and on.
I think that Francis is amazing, and I can see why he is said to be amazing.
I love it so much. Maybe too much, because I keep watching this over and over again, and it never gets old.

Platoon
Platoon(1986)
½

Defiantly goes beyond what we expect from a war movie. A powerful epic tale of people finding out the world they live in, and falling into it's deep traps. The scene where they burn down the city is disgusting, yet so moving and powerful. Matched with Oliver Stones personal experiences, we know now the world that we have made, and that's why this movie won best picture. Oh, and the camera work was phenomenal. As well as strong performances from Charlie Sheen as well as Willem Dafoe.

Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane(1941)

Probably the best movie I've ever seen. The story was so simple, yet it was so powerful. Everything was perfect, and attractive. The cinematography matched. You know, I went into this thinking that I would hate it, and find it the most boring thing I'd ever seen. As it went in, the characters started pulling me in, then Charles Foster Kane's ego just set me up. I couldn't pull away, and even though I knew he was going to fall, I never knew how, and this movie kept me guessing. This is officially my favorite movie.

Pulp Fiction
Pulp Fiction(1994)
½

An awesome use of Tarantinos genius. He has prooven to me that he is worthy of my #1 favorite director.
This movie practically sets up the typical ''Tarantino'' movie: A blend of humor, violence, drama, ''tough guy'' characters, and the non-linear story.

The Final Destination

What a stupid movie. I mean really, there really is no ending. They just say ''What if?''.
I have to admit, the movie starts on a moderatly creative premise, but they didn't use the consitency they could have had if they had it.
Picture a block of steel. That's this movie, no consitency, and it would take a lot of things to use it wisley.
I've seen a lot of horror movies, but this is by far the worst. I mean really, is that guy just prone to pain? I mean, he knows he can't stop the chain, so just don't try!!!!!! He's gunna die eventually, make the best of what you've got instead of just watching everyone else die around you! Also, there is just an over use of gore. I know that people usually bleed like that, but I mean, really. Do you think we care? That's just like the saw movies! An overuse of gore, and not really that scary, or even original.
The bottom line is: Awful excuse for a ''horror'' movie.

Kill Bill: Volume 2

Although it's talkier and has a little bit less blood than the first one, the story unfolds in such a magical way. I couldn't stop watching for a minute. The camera work in this is phenomenal, and the color and saturation(or dryness) always matches the mood the film wants to give off. A perfect finish with a good ending to the story altogether, with decent performances from Uma Thurman and the guy that played Bill. And I also like how they had that representation of life and death. A fish that's flopping on the ground, and a fish that isn't flopping on the ground. It sort of gives off a neutral theme, considering that guy just tried to kill Beatrix. Also, the child is a very good way to unfold the story because she presents another neutral theme, keeping the violence down low, and allowing them to concentrate more on the story.

Kill Bill: Volume 1

With it's non linear story line, impressive visuals, and non-existent action scenes and blood pressures, this Tarantino blood bath is a definite classic. This defines Tarantino. Think about it: over the top action scenes, too much blood for real life (but enough for the audience) and extreme realitys. Kill Bill not only blends thrills with mixed genres, but comedy with story, and that makes the audience feel quite good.

The Hurt Locker
½

Amazing camera work, well acted, and amazing screen writing (yes I have a copy), this war story will go down in history, not just as a retell, but as an emotionally satisfying, compelling movie.

Black Hawk Down
½

Although the characters are forgettable, the blue color saturation produces a compelling effect on the audience, so compelling that we forget the story, and watch the bloody violence unfold.

Ratatouille
Ratatouille(2007)

I never thought I would be able to watch an animated rat cook, but obviously pixar proved me wrong again. This cute, original story intices me, as well as the animation, and inspires me to start cooking. I think that's the point of film: to change the way you look at life, and think. This movie does that. The fictional novel called ''Anyone can cook'' is this movie builds a very strong character.
During this movie, we learn about 2 characters. Remmy, a mouse, and Linguini, a nervous, week willed, human. We also learn that Remmy has a natural knack for flavor, but Linguini has no knowledge of cooking. Reversal of character, no? A mouse that can cook (not usual in real life, if at all real in any situation) and a human that can't cook. When they cross, Remmy teaches Linguini how to cook. They end up becoming famous again, and the strong character built by the sentance ''Anyone can cook'' inspires even the most unlikely of things to cook.

Cop Out
Cop Out(2010)

Cop outs incomprehensible editing, bad pacing, clumsy plot, and awful performances enhance all the cliché events that make this Kevin Smith film worse then it has to be. Even visually this was bad. The camera was off frame half the time, and it was always static. If it wasn't my friends with me, I would have left. I predict ''Worst screen couple'' at the razzies, and maybe worst lead/ supporting actors. Maybe even worst film.

Shutter Island

Scorsese's ability to explore the human psychology in a controlled(and by controlled I mean by the characters in the movie)environment enables DiCaprio's performance to soar. Scorsese also uses the dark tone to add to the visual effects, and to be honest, I was about to give this great thrill ride a 6, but the twist ending changed my mind completly. I would recommend this to my friends on the condition that they have a big attention span and and eye for creativity, and not just an attraction to big action scenes, and explosions.

The Dark Knight
½

Dark but complex, visually amazing yet amazingly acted, and it's filled with action but it still has memorable characters. It also boasts amazing performances from Heath Ledger, this sequel improves on the first movie by a very big margin.

District 9
District 9(2009)

To be honest, this wasn't really worth the excitment. Sure, the screenplay was great, the storyline was solid, it kept going one way then another, the acting was great, technologically great, but I found the relationship between Christopher and Wicus to be really off putting. They didn't seem to have a good relationship, and since there are no prawns on earth, it was hard to tell weather Christopher was a good guy or a bad guy. He had a lot of dialogue, but since he was an alien, you couldn't tell if he was being nice, or had any sort of emotion when he spoke.
I liked the ending, it really made me think. In the end, Wikus turns into a prawn, but he didn't forget about his wife, so he sends her a flower made out of metal. This was touching, and it's not like one of those endings that you can predict. It's one that makes you think, and they answered all the questions I had in the end.
Another thing that made me think was when the lab was expirimenting on Wikus. When he fought back and got out, I though ''Why didn't they put him to sleep?''. Well, apparently the doctors didn't want to put any asthetics on the arm. Well, they were allready doing thousands of tests on other prawns, why didn't they just test the asthetics out on them first?
They left a lot of room for a sequel, but it would be really hard for Neil to think of another story, because to make this, they would need to think of an explanation as to why Christopher didn't take all the other prawns, if it had been 3 years yet, if Christopher could change Wikus back into a human after the transformation was complete, and something I think would be pretty cool is if Christopher could be changed into a human, I think that would develop better character. That moves me onto the next topic.
Well, the characters in the movie were really interesting, but I found that only Wikus was developed enough. Like I said above, Christopher is very underdeveloped. It's hard to develop a character that gives off only a little bit of emotion, and has little body emotions as well.
Visually, this was amazing. Like this didn't jsut intice me, it blew me away. Although the blood on the camera is kind of cliché, it was beatiful, and creepy. Camera work was terrific, with mind blowing shots of everything in the movie. A lot of the times it's shaky, but that's good because it's ussually some sort of battle scene. It gives off good feel, and as well as the story, it gives off a creepy effect throughout the enitre film.
This is one type of science fiction I really enjoy. I loved the screenplay, because it was so appealing. This was a very science fictiony movie, with great attributes and solid story. This movie was really great.
Bottom Line: Didn't make much room for improvment, kept the viewers interest, but striped out on some important characteristics and details.

To Kill A Mockingbird

I really like this movie, but I can't help but referencing this to the book. This book was amazing, and it's full of metaphors and symbols, and bold themes and tones, but this movie is too short to reference these. I still like the movie, but I think if they had some sort of way to incorporate the old themes, plus the metaphors, this would have been better on my side. Never the less, this is amazing. It has interesting characters and amazing acting, and I still think the director could have been more involved. A few scenes seemed out of order. This movie is very well constructed and uses it's camera work and interesting characters to convey the audience into it's amazing plot. And since it's from the perspective of a young girl, it makes it even better for the audience.

Zombieland
Zombieland(2009)
½

It's humour matches is bloody gory violence, to create the perfect balance of a genre bleding thrill ride. Also, the relationships between the characters, and since there are only 4 (other than Bill Murray)it just makes it even more intamate.

Batman & Robin

Ah, batman. The caped crusader. The man I looked up to as a child. And now, Joel Schumacher has ripped the life out of my childhood, and burned it to bits. This movie is so awful, it got numerous Razzie Awards.

Sarah Silverstone-Worst supporting actress
George Clooney and Chris O'Donnel-Worst Screen couple
Akiva Goldsman-Worst Screenplay
Chris O'Donnel and Arnold Schwarzenegger-Worst supporting actors
Uma Thurman-Worst supporting actress
Billy Corgan-Worst song (The End is the Beginning is the End)

Worst Picture
Worst Remake or Sequel
Worst Reckless Disregard for Human Life and Public Property

Anyway, if you've seen the movie and survived it, you'll know that nothing about it is good. Visually, it's painful. Especially in the street racing motor-cycle scene. There are fucking skulls being projected on to a wall. Then there are men wearing too much make-up, and there is a little kid with skulls and spikes on top of a motor-cycle yelling ''Yeah! You go!''. Do I even have to express how cheesy this is?
I also found that the acting in this was as well as the visuals, painful to the fullest extent.
Also, what's with Robin in this? I don't remember him being a little bitch! ''You could pretty much replace his dialogue with. BLEH BLAH BLEE BLAH''-Nostalgia Critic. I completely agree. Uma Thurman sets a very bad effect for this movie. This effect, would be crap. Just like her acting. She is not hot, she is a bad actor and really, really annoying. Now here's the shitty part, reviewing Arnold. He is the worst actor in this movie. Not only is his voice choppy, but the script he had to read off was even worse! 90% of his dialogue is ice puns. 10 minutes in and you've already had about 30 ice puns.
The plot line is absolutely disgraceful. Not only is there possible homosexuality innuendos, but it's so cliché! From the evil lab with the lighting bolt, to bane (not criticizing the old bane, but all this one does is run through things and groan.)! I hate the part when they go surfing in the air when they jump of the ship. I have to admit, the premise of that is pretty cool, but they had to ruin it by giving Mr.Freeze butterfly wings. That's just stupid.
Everything is so cheesy! All the ice puns, the flower puns, the scripts, the one-liners, and Joel Schumacher thinking he could make a good movie out of this.
I have to say, though, that Joels objective was to make this family friendly, and it worked, but it was just so stupid. If you were 5 and you watched this, it would be so epic. If you have any taste, you would know that this is awful.
Bottom Line: Sent the Batman franchise into the dark ages.

Napoleon Dynamite
½

A well constructed, somewhat humorous, well acted storyline of teenage awkwardness. I like this movie, not so much as a piece of art, but a very good retell of the boring life as it really is in where ever it is they live.

Saving Private Ryan
½

With amazing camera work and sharp direction from Steven Spielberg, this bloody and violent catastrophically impacting war tale is unbearably amazing to watch.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Am I really the only one that thinks this is a good movie? Sure, the characters are a little extreme and it's a little too long, but it's still a classic act.
I have to admit, the story is a bit complicated. I can't really think of anything else to say, it grabbed my interest through the entire film, but it's stupid as hell.
Megan Fox is pretty much the only non stupid thing about this (sounds sexist, I know), shes the sex appeal and probably in the middle ranking of actors in the movie.
Oh yeah and whats with everybody making this a comedy? The really old transformer in the movie that comes to help Shia LaBeouf is ''funny'' (I put that in quotations for sarcastic remark), bumble bee at the beginning is ''funny'', the mother when she ate an ''organic brownie'' is ''funny'', BUT IT REALLY ISN'T FUNNY.
Bottom Line: Too complicated, too long, and painfully unfunny. But so interesting to watch.

2012
2012(2009)

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time writing this review. I don't want to write it, really. I hate this movie so much, that if it was a baby in a mothers womb, I'd have it aborted. Seriously, Roland Emmerich is an awful director, and this movie is exactly like ''The day after tommorow'', so when watching this, it's like I've already seen it. Oh, and I'm just curious, what did they think the genre of this movie would be, because I'm really confused. A painfully unfunny comedy? A crappy action? A stupid sci-fi? A movie about family that hate each other? Sheesh, I could go on forever.
I must admit, though, the visual effects are amazing. I really felt like the world was ending around me. It's a good thing this is a computer, because I would break out in laughter saying that. I actually felt like laughing the whole way through at how pathetic this is. Not at the FX, but the fact that everything was either frozen, or erupted in lava.
I actually hate every single character put into this movie. They are so under-developed. Also, Roland Emmerich really needs to find a better casting agent, I mean the acting is just awful.
The worst script I have ever heard in my 15 years of existence. I'm not going to even go into detail.
If you know anything about real film, you'll know that constant ''KABOOM, BANG BANG BANG BANG''doesn't make for a good film.
Bottom Line: Very good FX, but everything else isn't worth a penny.

Avatar
Avatar(2009)
½

This film may look beautiful, but the story is so cliché. I feel like I'm watching Pochahontis, but in the future.
While the action scenes and the characters keep my interest, I find the way it's portrayed is a little underdone. And I've seen the story before. And Sigourney Weaver over acted. And there is too much intertextuality. And..well you get my point.
Bottom line: High tech, visual thrills can't save this god awful plotline.