“Must Love Dogs” stars John Cusack, Diane Lane, and co-stars Elizabeth Perkins, Christopher Plummer and many more. It’s written and directed by Gary David Goldberg, who’s previous work is found on the small screen.

Sarah Nolan (Diane Lane) is recently divorced pre-school teacher looking for the right guy to wake up and eat breakfast with for the rest of her life. Thanks to her sister, Sarah’s profile get puts on PerfectMatch.com with the closing line stating “must love dogs”. Jake (John Cusack) is a hopeless romantic who comes across her enthusiastic profile and stunning picture. They just might be the perfect match.

Stepping into my shady zone (that being romantic comedies), I wasn’t too excited about seeing this one, which is why it flew under my radar. However, I really enjoyed the story and more importantly the characters. Under rated actor John Cusack nails his role as the energetic and charming man and Diane Lane couldn’t be more gorgeous as the shy and beautiful-without-knowing-it teacher. Not only is this movie romantic, it’s also surprisingly funny and witty. If you take in consideration my uncontrollable sickness to dislike most romantic comedies, you will realize that this movie is much better than it should be.

Unlike most romantic comedies, this one is simultaneously romantic and very funny. A very difficult feat if you ask me. I wasn’t trying to predict the predictable story, which just proves that I was really interested in the movie and the very likable characters developed with style and grace. John Cusack and Diane Lane have expert chemistry that carries this film smoothly through it’s appropriate 98 min running time. The ending is sweet and the film definitely knows how to touch the viewers heart.

Astonishingly, I highly recommend “Must Love Dogs”. From the near hilarious opening to the heartfelt ending, I couldn’t adore this movie more. Some people might think this is a girlie movie, but it’s not. It has viewpoints from both the male and female perspectives. This isn’t very usual when it comes to this genre. The most amazing thing about it is the chemistry. It’s very obvious that John Cusack and Diane Lane clicked during the screening for “Must Love Dogs”. Other than it being forgivingly predictable, there really isn’t much bad to say about this film. Some might say I am praising this movie too much, but, I really liked it. Not the best romantic comedy, but it was undeniably close to making the top 5 list. Whether you spend money on a rental or catch it on television, this one is easily worth checking out.

“First Sunday” stars rough and tough Ice Cube, joker Tracy Morgan and co-stars funny man Katt Williams. It’s written and directed by David E. Talbert and this is his first well-known movie.

Two life long buddies, Durell (Ice Cube) and LeeJohn (Tracy Morgan), get caught up in paying a Jamaican gangster his money. LeeJohn comes up with the most immoral plan anyone can think of and, at the same time, Durell has to help out his family or he will lose his kid. This all heads in the direction of a petty crime that cost them 5000 hours of community service and LeeJohn’s impervious plan.

Ice Cube’s recent film isn’t truly a comedy. It does have a couple funny moments (ALL of which were spoiled in the trailer), but this film awkwardly crosses into the area of being a mawkish melodrama. Other than resorting to funny moments, it ends up trying to send a flimsy and lighthearted moral that isn’t quite as powerful as they were hoping. This is definitely something I wasn’t expecting and resulted in disappointment rather than amusement. This dramedy [Yes, I said dramedy] isn’t as reluctant to turn to unmannered behavior and foul language, without being offensive (something I enjoy more and was executed in the Friday series).

I do respect Ice Cube’s choice in movies lately with most of them being family friendly and non-violent comedies. The only real problems here are the clumsy and off-guard approach to stirring up a moral and the fact that it’s bombarded with melodramatic subplots (all of which aren’t very funny). Most of the subplots try to generate tears of joy. It was a sketchy attempt, but I do respect it. A minor problem was bad marketing. The trailer gives the impression this was going to be a hilarious comedy event in tradition to the Friday series, but it wasn’t. This isn’t the movie’s fault. I enjoyed it, although I was disgruntled at David E. Talbert’s turn from comedy to melodrama.

Katt William’s kindles up some one-liners sure to make you giggle or even get in a good laugh. Overall, this dramedy feels absurdly uneven. A number of funny parts are offset by the uncountable subplots with a startling dramatic effect. Sound lumpish? Well it is. I like Ice Cube and admire his shift into the family friendly movie zone, but this one just feels overpowered by sappy and formulaic material.

“Shattered Glass” stars Hayden Christensen, Peter Sarsgaard, Chloe Sevigny, Rosario Dawson, Melanie Lynskey, Hank Azaria and Steve Zahn. Each and every one of these actors are at the top of their game. It’s written and directed by Billy Ray, who later wrote and directed the thriller “Breach”.

“Are you mad at me?” and  ”I’m sorry.” These are words spoken from a guy who can’t stand being disliked. “Shattered Glass” is based on the true story about Stephen Glass, a man who’s career is stopped dead in it’s tracks because of multiple fraudulent stories he wrote and were published as fact. He became the youngest writer for “The New Republic” and basically lied through his teeth about more than half of his published work, leading to his downfall.

A great movie indeed, “Shattered Glass” features an acclaimed cast that delivers some startling performances. Every actor in this movie has never (and probably will never) make a better movie than this one. The story is remarkable. Rather than being an attack on Stephen Glass’s fraudulent stories, this film honors his ability to lie entertainingly. Peter Sarsgaard provides a shattering performance as Chuck Lane, the man who accepted responsibility for publishing Glass’s fabricated stories.

If I had a list for the top 20 best films of all time, I would find room somewhere on that list for this movie. Superbly directed and strongly written, there is nothing bad to say about it. It is a captivating movie experience, right down the sketchy stories written by the admired journalist Stephen Glass. An intelligent, thought provoking story that is told with both style and grace. The film gets more interesting as it goes along, dishing out amusing fictional stories that are sure to entertain.

A virtually untouchable film with some of the most memorable performances I have ever seen. Take my advice, this is a must see movie. Easily one of the best films made in the millennium age. Don’t believe me, watch it for yourself and see if you can call it anything other than masterful. “Shattered Glass” is an important movie, proving that the most entertaining stories are the ones imagined.

“Funny Games” stars Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet and Devan Gearheart. It’s written and directed by Michael Haneke, who directed the original foreign film that goes by the same title.

After settling in their vacationing home, a married couple (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth) and their young child (Devan Gearheart) become terrorized by a couple of unwelcomed visitors. After getting the news that some stranger is at the door, the wife answers the door to find a polite young man dressed in tennis whites asks if he and his soon to arrive sidekick can borrow some eggs. This is when the games begin.

Michael Haneke uses only half of his brain here. There are moments that are near brilliant, but the majority of this artsy thriller is dense and dim-witted. There are powerhouse performances to be found practically all around (aside from an unconvincing act performed by Devan Gearheart). My problem with the movie is the script. The film has some moments of sheer brilliance, including the psycho addressing the camera and using a remote to rewind the film in order to save his sidekick. These moments are off-set thanks to many absent-minded moments, including an almost ten minute scene involving ones effort to get off the floor and the attempt to dry a cell phone with a hair dryer.

It was disturbing at times and there were moments that took me by surprise, but the script was a wreck. Some scenes are drawn out to very lengthy proportions that are tedious and dull. Even pointless shots from outside the house seem extended. The camera angels are a little messy at times. One particular angel is shot from under the stairs where the viewer doesn’t have the slightest idea what is going on (this being one of the worst usage of a camera I have seen in years). There were moments of laughter (not too sure if it was intentional or not) that just didn’t feel right.

Overall, I don’t think I liked “Funny Games” but I didn’t hate it.  A more appropriate title for this film would be “Tediously Sadistic Games”. The film was somewhat disturbing, moderately suspenseful, and at times criminally boring. About four scenes scattered in the film that are very intelligent, while multiple scenes should have been cut shorter and weren’t thought out properly. I blame most of these dilemmas on the editing and script. It was a good effort, but Michael Haneke doesn’t quite grasp the true meaning of entertainment.

“Shrooms” stars a handful of unknown faces including Lindsey Haun, Jack Huston and many others. It’s directed by Paddy Breathnach and written by Pierce Elliot, both of which are first-timers and it certainly shows here.

The film centers around your usual don’t-do-drugs-in-the-woods horror theme. A group of unlucky Americans arrive in Ireland looking for a potent drug known as shrooms. They are guided on their quest by a mushroom expert who points out the ups and downs of shrooming. After eating some of these magic mushrooms, the group becomes attacked by shadowy figures, not sure if they are hallucinating or if it is all real.

The film suffers from a dull use of a cliched premise. Don’t be fooled by the attractive cover and the addictive title. It takes a while for the film to lift itself off the ground and when it does, nothing particularly special occurs. The film manifests itself into a buzz that quickly fades into a familiar experience, taking a twist from a more disturbing and entertaining film known as “High Tension”. Many times the film is shot from a disorienting camera lens (primarily used during premonitions) that becomes irritating rather than trippy.

This is the equivalent of a bad trip, complete with a pounding headache and that feeling of regret. Why did I take that drug? Or in this case, why did I watch that movie? There are lots of dark scenes shot in a distorting blue color (similar to the color found on the cover) that make it difficult to see what’s going on. The kills are too poorly shot to be scary and it’s never gory or funny enough to pass as a horror comedy. A talking cow is thrown into the mix to hopefully generate a couple of chuckles. Really, this scene is just an urgent attempt at making a memorable moment.

This is a film that has no redeeming qualities. The acting by the female leads are beyond bad and rely on their good looks. Not a bad thing, but no nudity is present, which is what many people depend on to be mildly entertained during a dull horror movie like this one. The unexpected twist ending every horror fanatic has already seen executed more effectively in other films. When it rolls around you feel riped off, as if someone sold you a bag of oregano rather than your usual supply of reefer.

“Leatherheads” stars George Clooney, Renee Zellweger and John Krasinski. It’s directed by George Clooney, this being the third time he has directed himself in a movie. The script was written by Ducan Brantley and Rick Reilly.

The film is set in the 1920’s football era. Where there weren’t helmets, there were leatherheads. Dodge Connelly (George Clooney) is the captain of the football team and plans to lead his dysfunctional team to the pros. Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger) is a journalist looking for the story of her career. That story being the talk of the town known as Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski), who forced many German soldiers to surrender in WWI all on his own.

The problem with “Leatherheads” is that it tries to brew together multiple genres and fails miserably. Renee Zellweger as the perky, sour faced journalist (usually found wearing scarlett red) doesn’t really show any talent. The chemistry between her and George Clooney feels dispute. The filmmakers did a good job at catching the essence of the 1920’s, nailing the clothing styles, music and the transportation established during this time. But the film itself feels dated. This is definitely something that might appeal to older folks, particularly within the age range of 70 and up.

George Clooney, who usually plays very mundane characters, tries to liven his act up a bit. The problem is he isn’t funny. The script is frail and doesn’t have any true moments or surprises. Very few of the scenes involve football, so the trailer was kind of a mislead. Sadly, these rarely shown football scenes rely on close-ups of Clooney’s goofy expressions to make us laugh. The entire thing was rather boring and was too long for a comedy. The dialog is missing snap and wit, something repeatedly shown in the trailers. Another mislead.

The direction wasn’t bad, but it never reaches any level of success. A short summary would be the film is lacking. The comedy failed completely without a moment of chuckles. For those who are looking for something with some comedic payoffs and a more football related comedy, skip this one. Overall, the film that doesn’t really know what direction to run in, fumbling between a screwball comedy and a romantic love triangle. Having said that, you might want to thing twice about seeing this one.

“Bachelor Party” stars Tom Hanks, Tawny Kitaen, and many others who names become lost in memory, thanks to well known Tom Hanks. It’s directed by Neal Isreal who’s work is formally found on the small screen.

Rick (Tom Hanks) is a school bus driver who is soon getting married to a beautiful brunette named Debbie (Tawny Kitaen). During the usual outing with his friends, Rick informs his buddies about his latest news. Of course, the first thing that springs to the mind these party animals is a bachelor party complete with hookers, drugs, alcohol…and a mule?

The film features a young, healthy, and energetic Tom Hanks as a refreshing character who is immature with no moral intentions or thoughts about the future: Very funny. The rest of the movie relies on the wit of the script that only shines on a few occasions, but those few occasions are genuinely amusing. The movie also has a large quotum of gorgeous women, most of which exhibit some serious flesh. However, I do feel that Tawny Kitaen was a miscast here. The chemistry between her and Tom Hanks felt bland.

“Bachelor Party” is dirty, raunchy, rude and often laugh-out-loud funny. At times the movie is just noisy and leans toward an uncomfortable area, but doesn’t loiter in this area. This a film some people might find insulting, others might describe it as being as raunchy and crude for it’s generation as “Superbad” is for our generation. This romp does overstay it’s welcome and has moments that should have been cut to make it an appropriate 90 minute running time. Those who become bitter and enraged by random acts of sex with mules and the appearance of hookers with whips, this isn’t the comedy for you.

There are moments of hilarious vulgarity, earning this wild party a very cautious recommendation provided that some might find it extremely offensive. Tom Hanks really shines here, pending the fact that he has no competition on screen. It is lacking in a more appropriate supporting actress with some sort of chemistry to dish out. If your looking for a good laugh here and there, “Bachelor Party” has a decent amount of those scattered in it’s 105 minute running time. A few of those laughs being uncontrollable. This is a large compliment to the widely overlooked Tom Hanks comedy that spawned an unnecessary sequel. Worthy of a rental if you aren’t easily offended.

“Nim’s Island” stars academy award nominee Abigail Breslin, academy award winner Jodie Foster, Gerald Butler known for his role in “300″ as King Leonidas. It’s directed by Jennifer Flackett and Mark Levin.

Nim (Abigail Breslin) lives on an island with her dad (Gerald Butler) and many of her animal friends. Her dad is a marine biologist who studies microscopic organisms that live in the ocean, which Nim report as not being her thing. Nim’s hobby is reading. She loves reading books about a fictional adventurer named Alex Rover (Gerald Butler) written by Alexandra Rover (Jodie Foster). When Nim’s dad becomes missing at sea and her island becomes invaded, she asks for the help of her mythical hero Alex Rover.

Another average family friendly film with an minor issue not usually found in this genre. The problem being it doesn’t try hard enough. I found that most films geared towards kids try too hard to please audiences and end up being annoying to adults. This isn’t the problem here. Never once did I find myself truly aggravated, but it could have used more imagination. With a great imagination this film could have been taken too the outer limits without huffing and puffing it’s way to the finish line. It felt like the actors were just on vacation. Jodie Foster was decent and would have been really good if the movie was a little better, Abigail Breslin is adorable like she was suppose to be, and Gerald Butler give an uneven performance, with the more likable character being Alex Rover.

The story was very simplistic with nothing really complex muddling it’s moral. This is very mild entertainment. The scenery is really the only thing to look forward to if you going to see this in theaters. It was beautiful too look at. But with no adventure or action taking place, the film begins to slowly fade in memory, never being a real burden to my viewing pleasure. I enjoyed it, but not immensely and it never uses a sufficient amount of imagination to sparkle. Jodie Foster was very energetic and brought some life to the screen. A screen lacking in full-on entertainment and a suitable amount of happenings. This isn’t a boring movie or a bad movie, but it’s lacking in effort.

I did like the movie, but I felt like there could have been much more done here starting with it being more adventurous. The acting wasn’t bad but the script (which took a total of four writers) felt underwritten. There is no real chemistry to be found between the actors, aside from Nim and her gassy sealion who spend the most screen time together. Nothing special and I wouldn’t spend the admission price plus popcorn and soda to see it, but it certainly isn’t a hardcore disappointment and the ending is sweet.

“The Ruins” stars Jonathan Tucker, Jena Malone, Shawn Ashmore, and Laura Ramsey. It’s directed by Carter Smith (Me and Max, Bug Crush) and based on the novel written by Scott B. Smith, who also wrote the screenplay for the movie.

The story follows a group of friends who decide to head to a remote temple in the Mexican jungle. They are accompanied by a tourist with a map to the temple. When the group arrives, the are welcomed in the most unpleasant way by village people who are determined to sacrifice them to a horror that grows like weed.

Those who can’t stand the sight of blood or become queasy easily should probably skip this one, for it has it’s fair share gory moments. There are many problems that flood the film. One is the fact that it wasn’t hardly scary. The thought of plants that get under your skin wasn’t the least bit frightening nor was it believable. Another flaw was the thinly written script and poor character development. The antics performed by the characters were so absent-minded that I was hoping they would die. That way they wouldn’t continue to polute the screen with such stupid tomfoolery. The dialog will have you rolling your eyes in disgust at how badly written it all is. This is a strictly by the numbers horror flick, so don’t expect to be blown away by it’s originality.

I was surprised that the cast did moderately good acting, more notably by the female leads. Unfortunately, the movie managed to cough up more laughs than thrills. The scenes that include dwelling into the temple were poorly shot and too dark at times to tell what was going on. Other scenes were shot beautifully, including a scene in which the plants snatch up a couple of severed limbs. I laughed quite a bit, which I don’t think was the film’s intention. On the plus side, it has it’s moments of extreme gore (looks great on the big screen) that will have many covering their ears and cuffing their mouth.

It tries very hard to dig under your skin, but truthfully digs deep down and tickles the funny bone. A disappointing feat if your expecting a horror movie. I was somewhat disappointed in the sudden ending and the whole outcome of the movie. The beginning was paced slowly, giving me that “get on with it” feeling. The unintentional laughter was heavy compared to the scares, which felt as light as a feather. This is a film that breezes by without being truly captivating or maintaining a staining effect.

“Cloverfield” stars a young and talented cast that includes Mike Vogal, T.J. Miller, Jessica Lucas, Odette Yustman, and Lizzy Caplan. It features Matt Reeves’ directorial debut and is written by Drew Goddard.

The movie opens with film that has been found in Central Park in Manhattan, New York and displayed by government officials. On the film, a going away party for Jason Hawkins (Mike Vogal) is interrupted by an earthquake that shakes the building, all of this being documented by a friend of Jason Hawkins named Hud (T.J. Miller). The party heads to the roof to see if they can see anything and witness an explosion that sets this monster movie in motion.

Most people are quick to reference this movie to the infamous Blair Witch Project, which is totally appropriate considering that they stole the concept. However, this is more real and intense than that. At one point they refer to terrorist attacks, which is what most people’s first reactions would be to an unexpected explosion that occurs nearby. The jittery camera work does varnish the realistic effect, but this is used very excessively and will probably nausea to those with motion sickness. I don’t have that problem, so I had a great time. I felt like I was there, actually getting the urge to run from this hideous, but undeniably gorgeous, monster. A movie has never been so frighteningly real.

Buckle yourself in, hold on tight, and don’t hit your head on the ceiling, for this is so intense you will not be able to sit still. It was so much better than I expected. To cope with what’s going, the documenter resorts to some humor while others panic and loot. How much more real can you get? Truth be told, I loved it. You get an excellent shot of the monster, which is very frightening, yet engaging.  It has many jump out of your seat scares and genuinely surprising moments where I caught myself holding my breath, then gasping for air. This happened repeatedly. It’s a more innovative and shocking sci/fi horror movie than any other out there. My heart was pounding, my palms were sweating, and I was in complete awe. What more could you ask for from a horror movie?

Surprisingly, I cherished the shaky camera work. I was never lost and knew what was going on at all times. That’s impressive considering the camera becomes tilted at several different angels. Many questions are left unanswered (where did this monster come from and was it government related?), but this is forgiven when a movie delivers something deeper than goosebumps. I know that this is a bold statement, but it’s one of the most frightening monster movies made in decades. The acting was solid and the director did fantastic job at making a masterpiece without one scene feeling choreographed. Heart pounding terror filled the core of my bones as I nearly fell off my chair. Thank you Hollywood for finally making the ultimate monster movie.

“Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon” stars newcomer Nathan Baesel, Angela Goethals, and co-stars the legendary Robert Englund. It’s written and directed by first-time director Scott Glosserman.

Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel) is the new slasher on the streets and invites a crew of filmmakers to document his life as he plans his next kills in the sleazy town known as Glen Echo. While the filmmakers get a sort high from the experience of the premeditated murders, once the psychotic Leslie Vernon kills his first victims, that euphoria soon diminishes.

Writer/Director Scott Glosserman has a little fun with the subject, adding references to Michael Myers, Freddy Kruger, and Jason Vorhees. All of this is mentioned in the sluggish beginning, involving two dimensional character development that soon evolves into three dimensional character development as the film proceeds. This movie clearly has it’s ups and downs.

The first half of the movie is a complete mess. It has an unrelenting artificial flavoring heavily coated on the flimsy documentary style camera work that lessens the realistic effect. As the film continued on, one scene was projected that was very interesting. This scene involves the premeditated murder of a group of party animals. From there on, the film moves slowly up and down the rating scale, containing an occasionally intelligent script and a couple scenes of boredom where I found myself more interested in petty things, like the twirling of my thumbs. One thing is for certain, this is a sadistic insight of the mind of a serial killer that will be the root of a long discussion during dinner time.

I would’ve liked the film to be more of a slasher film than a documentary. The movie lacked blood (some of the most grotesque moments were off camera) and displays a series of cheap and forgettable kills. Therefore, the true gorehound, like me, will be somewhat disappointed. Nathan Baesel gives a mighty strong acting debut, bringing a moderately creepy vibe, especially when he is preparing his attacks. Scott Glosserman uses similar elements of “The Blair Witch Project”, without the staining style or powerful substance. I do see the talent here, but it wasn’t used to it’s full extent. There are some strong, compelling performances and a sometimes incisive script that are overwhelmed by a substantial amount of dimwitted moments. Did I like it? Not really, but I wouldn’t withhold you from seeing it.

“Superhero Movie” stars the young uprising actor Drake Bell, the young hottie Sarah Paxton, character actor Christopher McDonald, and funny guy Leslie Nelson. It’s written and directed by Craig Mazin, who is responsible for writing films like “Senseless”, “Scary Movie 3″, and “Scary Movie 4″.

This is a spoof of all the recent superhero movies, including “The Fantastic Four”, “Batman Begins”, X-Men” and the spotlight of the film being the first of the “Spiderman” series. A loser named Rick Riker (Drake Bell), who is introduced in the first scene by multiple shots to the head, is the hero of this silly story. When our unlikely hero is bit on the neck by a genetically engineered dragonfly, he becomes the go-to-guy to destroy his arch enemy, Hourglass (Christopher McDonald).

With all of the recent flat-out unfunny spoofs of the past few years (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans), this is one of the best I have seen. There are some spirited moments that are well spoofed and fine timing when it comes to the one-liners. Unfortunately, all of this is weighed down by not so funny references to my space, google, you tube, and facebook. Not to mention adding a stupid moment involving dumping someone because they are no longer on their cellphone’s five person plan.

Most of the jokes are very lame and some of the laughs feel forced. This is a very common matter when it comes to spoofs. This is a sporadically funny spoof containing a few good laughs that become interrupted with the tired references to pop culture and overlong potty humor. Drake Bell is good in this genre and I found him to be pretty funny at times. His expressions sell the movie, bringing life to some moments of unfunny gags. I had a good time with all of this, but nothing is particularly memorable. 

“Superhero Movie” is a much better approach to the live genre known as spoofing. There are some surprisingly clever moments that associate with the first “Spiderman”. It’s when the filmmakers attempt to spoof “The Fantastic Four” and “X-Men” that most of the jokes fall flat. It’s a good thing that “Spiderman” was their mainstream movie to spoof. Compared to the worst film of last year, (that being “Epic Movie”) “Superhero Movie” is masterful work. Leslie Nelson could’ve been funnier and there are much better movies to see, but if your feeling in the mood for stupid fun, that is exactly what “Superhero Movie” is.  A golden turd of a movie that I surprisingly recommend viewing once it hits the rental shelves.

“Stop-Loss” stars Ryan Phillippe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, and many more uprising stars . It’s directed by critically acclaimed movie director Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry), who is partially credited for writing the story.

After serving his time and duty in Iraq, dedicated war hero Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) returns to his home in Texas, only to find out that he has been stop-lost. This is a military term meaning the extension of ones service involuntarily. When Sgt. Brandon King hears this, he goes AWOL and escapes in a desperate attempt not to return to Iraq.

Being hailed as an anti-war/pro-soldier drama, “Stop-Loss” is both a powerful and harrowing film. Director Kimberly Pierce does an outstanding job at digging deep for the performances of a lifetime given by both Ryan Phillippe and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. The stable performance by Ryan Phillippe is compelling , but the truly riveting act here was dished out by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the soldier falling apart. I took the time to relish each moment he was on screen, proving to be the best performance of his career and possibly worthy of an Oscar nod.

You know that little box in your head that stores every memorable movie? “Stop-Loss” fits neatly in that box, being one of the top ones you pull out to recommend. It’s the best anti-war movie I have witnessed in my career of viewing movies and is the first must-see drama of the year. The acting is top-notch, especially by Joseph Gordon-Levitt who gives the first perfected performance of his accomplished and growing career. The hand held camera work is used at times to polish the rawness of the film. These are just a few of the things that prove that Kimberly Pierce was born to direct such emotionally effective films like this one. The only thing the film is truly lacking is the praise it so rightfully deserves.

As I looked around at the dead-empty movie theater, I couldn’t help but wonder why nobody is going to see this great movie. If there is one movie to be seen in theaters right now, that movie is “Stop-Loss”. The film is not without it’s flaws, but none of them are clearly noticeable. If you probe hard enough you might find these blemishes, but you will have one hell of a time seeking them out. I was very impressed.

“The Rage” is directed by Robert Kurtzman, who is responsible for directing the near masterful work known as “Wishmaster”, and partly written by him also. The cast is full of actors and actresses who are unknown for a good reason.

A mad scientist experiments with a virus known as rage. He uses this to experiment with innocent victims deep in the woods. When a few of his patients escape, the woods become terrorized by blood hungry monsters who are in search of their next victims. In this case, the victims being the usual group of partiers.

It does take a kind sadistic talent to artistically splatter blood and spew guts, and Robert Kurtzman has that perverse talent. Everything, from the horrible acting to the rambunctious occurrences, are overlooked thanks to Kurtzman’s knack for directing over-the-top, campy horror films. I realize that it’s bad. Scratch that. I realize that it’s really bad, but this horror film actually brings some new ideas to the table. One innovative idea  being the mutated vultures who vomit on and devour their victims. If your hungry for a blood and guts galore, then look no further. Maybe it’s not the goriest film ever made (Dead Alive), but it’s surely packing lots of grotesque moments that will have people arguing over this subject matter.

“The Rage” is a gooey and delightfully gory feature guaranteed to satisfy any gorehound. The story is flimsy and the acting is cheesy. So to really enjoy this one for what it’s worth, you have to be a hardcore horror nut, which is certainly the category I fit under. My suggestion is to cut out your brain and kick it out the door before you watch this film, meaning don’t think too hard about it. There is one somewhat dull moment featuring a flashback. This is just a dire attempt at character development and ends up being a careless juncture. Those who don’t like the shaky camera work (like me) will be mildly disappointed at the excessive use of it during the vulture attacks.

Overall, this is worth a look for die hard horror buffs. Anyone with a weak stomach should avoid this one. One thing that would make me admire this movie much more than I already do, is if they didn’t go overboard with the CGI blood and vulture effects. Don’t take the acting and story so seriously and enjoy this movie for the brainless, blood-drenched horror movie it truly is and you won’t be disappointed.

“P2″ stars Rachel Nichols, Wes Bentley and a number of unknown actors and actresses. It’s directed by first-timer Franck Khalfoun and written by Alexandre Aja (High Tension) and Franck Khalfoun.

A woman (Rachel Nichols) gets stuck inside the parking garage of her work late on Christmas Eve and becomes pursued by a psychotic security guard (Wes Bentley). Her chances of escaping become very slim when the security guard has cameras watching her every move. This leads to her struggle to survive the night and maybe, just maybe get out of P2 alive.

I just watched the movie and I’m already starting to forgetting it. It tries so hard to be a throwback to the 80’s slasher flicks, but only succeeds in being basic and unoriginal. This holiday horror flick has weak characters, a sloppy script, poor acting, and lack of style. It starts off dull and doesn’t ever pick up the pace, in which some moments of dozing and head-nodding occur. It’s sporadically gory and is extremely low on the suspense. The acting by Wes Bentley was so terrible, it’s almost unbelievable. His features are more the preppy school boy type than the unstable human being, resulting in the most unconvincing psychopath I have seen in recent years.

“P2″ should’ve been released in it’s suitable form. That form being directly to DVD. I feel terribly bad for those poor horror fans who paid admission to see this. I’m sure most walked out to watch whatever was playing at the multiplex next door. “P2″ is one of the dullest thrillers made in the past few years. In fact, you might have to glue you eyelids open for this one. A mundane slasher flick with practically nothing to recommend. The dialog is about as unoriginal as you can get and after watching “P2″, you’ll be tired of hearing the names Tom and Angela.

I recommend that you rent “High Tension” and any other throwback to 80’s slasher flicks if you intend on getting even the mildest of thrills. The film was so boring, it almost crossed into the unwatchable zone. The three gory scenes were executed and shot poorly. Even the most radical ending wouldn’t save the film from being a total waste of time. Completely avoid this one at all costs.

“Penelope” stars Christina Ricci, James McAvoy, Catherine O’Hara, Richard E. Grant, and Reese Witherspoon. “Penelope” marks director Mark Palansky’s first full length feature film debut, which proves to be a pretty decent movie.

Penelope (Christina Ricci) is a young girl who was born with the nose of a pig because of a curse place upon her family by a witch. The catch is the curse isn’t permanent. It can be broken by finding true love and liking herself for who she is. Her mother (Catherine O’Hara) faked the death of Penelope to protect her from the public, leading to Penelope’s escape from home into the real world.

A few elements are exaggerated in the film. These include the dates jumping out nearby windows after seeing “the nose” and also the fact that she is unbearable to look at. Aside from her nose, Christina Ricci is absolutely adorable. These flaws can be forgiven for the fact that this is a fairytale story. ”Penelope” is bombarded by overacting from Catherine O’Hara. On the other hand, Christina Ricci is so appealing here that you look right past that distinct pig snout and see a charming performance. There is impressive dialog that is poetically narrated by Christina Ricci in the beginning. The rest of the film’s dialog is trite, but not abrasive.

Reese Witherspoon gives a short, but memorable, performance as the one who shows Penelope around the “outside world”. As vivid predictions lapsed through my head, I was completely surprised that the ending wasn’t as predictable as I thought. Sure the part about her living happily ever after was foreshadowed, but there are a couple of clever twists at the end. It’s quite refreshing.

There is a cliched subplot containing two characters who plan to get a snapshot of the nose for public appeal, but I enjoyed it for the most part. “Penelope” puts a small twist on the average fairytale. Nothing explosive (it’s just a nose), but cute enough to acknowledge. The direction isn’t top-notch, but acceptable considering this is Mark Palansky’s first full length feature film. I have to say that it was worth my time. It wasn’t an effort, but a pleasure watching “Penelope”.