The Dark Knight stars Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Maggie Gyllenhaal whose Cape Crusader is not wanting to reveal himself to the City of Gotham, but is the City ready for the Dark Knight.

The story line was confusing. All I know is that the Joker (Ledger) kills innocent people and the Batman (Bale) has to stop him before he does anymore damage. In the middle is Kent a lawyer who wins the affection of Rachel.(Gyllenhaal) Kent puts most of the criminals in jail by winning a court case. However, things get more serous when the bad guys look to a freak for help. The Joker doesn’t always tick to the plan and he makes a wondeful mess for everyone. The police in charge (Oldman) works with Batman to help catch this monstrous clown, but will Batman prevail? The story continues to get even more twisted when the good guys go bad.

The movies direction was very confusing. One minute you think the Joker is trying to be helpful but then he is bad. Ledger’s acting skills was very pleasing, but he didn’t get the final word. Was he caught or did he escape. We assume he was caught, but he always comes up with something clever. Another view is that Gary Oldman’s role was very disappointing. “So you came back from the dead?” Hmm…isn’t that Batman’s role? Batman always lives.

I loved the way the Joker came up with his tactics of killings. Ledger took things to a whole new level. I love the line when he says, “Why so serious?” Ledger tricks half the City by plotting destuctive mechanisms to make Batman realize what he is really after. Ledger as Joker also plays well when he goes after the heart. But why the good guy goes bad, makes one realize that Kent’s line was right, “You die to be a hero, or you can live long enough to become the villian.” Hmm….I like this quote it had meaning to it.

Overall this movie was pretty good. There were positive and negative things about the movie which gives you some mixed feelings. It was like this because this was Ledger’s last movie However, when you look into the moonlight you see a Dark Knight.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Bubble
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Debbie Doebereiner / Dustin James Ashley / Misty Wilkins
Rating:

Firstly, am I the only that constantly confuses Steven oderbergh with David Cronenberg? (At least I can spell their names properly) And secondly, the only Soderbergh films that I have seen previously are the Ocean’s films, Traffic, and The Good German (which I didn’t care for). I can see now that I definitely need to explore more of his earlier work. It’s not all George Clooney and heists.

I randomly picked up Bubble at the library a few days, thinking it was from the director of Eastern Promises and A History of Violence. With that in mind, I really wasn’t expecting the style of the film. About 20 minutes into it, I had to check the director on IMDb.

It’s quite an unusual film, more in the style of the Dogme 95 movement than anything else. I learned afterwards that the three main actors hadn’t acted before and the scrpt was improvised. This definitely makes sense, and I thought that it worked out very well. Everything about the film felt real and not forced. I was especially impressed with the subtelty.

There’s an alternate ending on the DVD, which personally I didn’t care for. I’m very glad that they didn’t use it, as it completely ruins the realistic quality of Bubble. I vastly prefer the ending that I did see. Everything isn’t wrapped up in a nice narrative box. There’s a lot to think about in terms of the characters and their motivations, and especially varying degrees of conflict. And of course, toss a little religion into the mix.

Bubble could almost be qualified as a short film, clocking in at 73 minutes. For me the length was perfect. With a film like this that doesn’t rely havily on professional actors and a developed script, I’m not sure how it would have fared with another half hour or so. The story was concise and intriguing.

I’m not going to summarize the film. I’d rather just recommend that you get a copy and watch it.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Believe the hype.

Believe every second and every word of every overwhelmingly positive review you’ve no doubt read or heard by now on The Dark Knight, and then multiply that by the biggest number that comes to your head, and even then you won’t have a clear idea of just how good and surprising this film really is.

Now, far better than me have been attempting to thrust the film into an unreachable realm of expectation, but let’s face it; the expectations on this film are so high and the buzz around the film so unrelenting, that no movie could hope to satisfy all those seemingly unsatisiable expectations, could it? Well, few movies have stepped up the way Christopher Nolan’s second Batman film does. Let me be clear when I say that, FEW movies have ever, or will ever live up to every ounze of unfair expectation befallen onto it, but The Dark Knight does. And it’s a unique buzz to be sure. It’s not just the rabid comic book geeks (like myself), or the film lovers or merely casual fans of the first film, but also a legion of supporters for the late and great Heath Ledger. Gone well before his time, the actor’s performance as the Joker launched into legendary status within weeks of the actor’s tragic death, but I am willing to bet that had Ledger not passed away, that it would have garnished the same reaction. We’ve all been feasting on the images and trailers and poster art of Ledger’s dark and twisted portrayal of Batman’s arch-nemesis, and as good as it looked in those, its even better on screen.

The plot, of course, follows the Joker’s exploits from the concluding scene of Batman Begins (2005), as he slowly builds a reputation for anarchy in Gotham City. Batman (Christian Bale) and Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) have been tracking him down, and are joined by the new and ambitious District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt). Dent is Gotham’s white knight, the city’s true hero and one unselfishly willing to do what it takes to stop the spread of crime and terror in Gotham. The three men combine resources to do a respectable job of cleaning up Gotham’s streets until the Joker comes along and throws a serious monkey-wrench into there plans and begins a psychological assault on the citizens of Gotham, the police, the D.A. and Batman himself, promising to keep killing high profile targets until Batman turns himself in and takes off his mask. His methods are highly effective, and soon the people of Gotham, ignoring all the good Batman has done them, now call for his head on a platter, willing to give in to the Joker’s demands.

But words don’t describe the emotion you will feel while watching this film. The raw emotion will have you buzzing along with the high octane action sequences, laughing at the uncomfortable humor and squirming in your seat, often all in the same scene. Nothing can prepare you for what awaits you when you sit down to watch this movie.

Nothing.

Nolan has crafted the newest masterpiece of our time (sitting side by side with Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy). It’s quite simply one of those once in a blue moon films that comes along at the perfect time and knocks everyone, and I mean everyone, geeks and all, on there collective asses and bends them to its unrelenting ass-kickery and the gut wrenching drama within it. This is more than a Batman movie, more than a comic book movie and more than any other term you want to apply to it.

It’s a compelling and emotional character drama, a wonderfully crafted crime drama on par with the best Hollywood has ever offered, a film about modern terrorism and the price of fighting it in a post 9/11 world and also a wonderful superhero movie. When I say that it comes along at the perfect time, its because I don’t think the pre-9/11 world would’ve accepted this film, at all and especially not as a superhero film, but the world is ready for it now and thats what fuels the fires, so to speak, and what makes the movie so gutwrenching to watch at times. It’s a film completely devoid of hope or redemption and it really sets out to just kick us all in the nuts and leave us numb, to which it succeeds greatly in doing. No matter what Batman or the Gotham police do in the film, things get worse. It’s really a comment on today’s society and how easily the frabic of that society, the glue, can come apart when terrorists know exactly where to hit you. It’s a film about terrorism as much as anything…emotional terrorism.

The Joker isn’t scary because he wants to kill a million people. He’s scary because he kills only a few important ones, dramatically so, and knows just how to push the right buttons to get the response he wants and bring the city to its knees, ready to break at the seams. He is a self-proclaimed agent of chaos, spreading the fires of his soul to the streets of Gotham for no other reason than he wants to do so. He is crazy, psychotic and scary. He is also by far the smartest guy in the room, or any room, and has this shit planned out step by step and is way ahead of the Gotham police, Harvey Dent and Batman the entire film. He’s so far ahead of everyone else, and the audience for that matter, that things seemingly unrelated to Joker at all come back and are suddenly apart of his longterm plan, and not in a “out of nowhere” way either, in a “holy shit! that crafty mother f—er!” way. Joker isn’t just a comic book villian or the “bad guy”, he is pure unadulterated evil, and Ledger plays him as such. Where film villians, especially those in comic book films (i.e.: The Green Goblin) often come off as overplayed and cheesy, Ledger’s Joker is a breath of terrifying fresh air.  The Joker comes off as a wild animal that has been caged up for months, if not years, foaming at the mouth, twitching his tongue and building up the anger and hate and now wants to take it out on you, me and everyone else. And thats exactly how he should be. As Alfred (Michael Caine) points out to Bruce, “Sometimes, people just want to see the world burn.”

Not so surprisingly, Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of the Joker in Tim Burton’s Batman film in 1989 now comes off as clownish and cheesy and well…Ledger’s Joker would kick his ass in a second. Unlike that film, the Nolan brothers (who wrote the screenplay for Knight) don’t bother with a useless origin story for Joker, he simply shows up and starts spreading anarchy in all directions, blowing things up, killing high level officials, and upping the anty with each move he makes. And like all great devilish characters, we sorta root for him, in a way, and we unwillingly start to identify with him each time he tells someone a shocking narrative from his past. The thing to remember about the character, as many writers have always said about the Joker and its certainly the case in The Dark Knight, is that when he tells a joke, he really should be the only person in the room laughing. Perhaps one of the few moments in the film where we’re allowed to laugh with the Joker, is in one of the first scenes, when he performs a gastly “magic trick” in such a casual, unflinching way that we can’t help but uncomfortably laugh. Simply put: Heath Ledger’s performance is something you couldn’t expect, and haven’t seen before and will never see again. It’s pitch-perfect. It’s so perfect in fact, that you didn’t know it before you saw it, but afterwards you’re like “wow, that was the Joker!”

As much as Joker does steal the show, the film is really Harvey Dent’s, it’s his story as much as Batman’s, and just as Nolan effectively made you forget the first film was a Batman movie for the first hour (with the Bruce Wayne origin tale), he makes you forget what you know will eventually happen to Dent in this movie. We know the story, we know who he becomes, but its done so much more tragically in this telling than ever before. It’s like a greek tragedy really, and Aaron Eckhardt knocks his performance as Dent out of the park every bit as much as Ledger does with the Joker. Dent represents the everyman, the blue collar worker and he stands up and fights for Gotham and makes a difference, so much so that he even makes Bruce believe in him and that the city may no longer need Batman. By the time the Joker’s boobytrap does disfigure Harvey you’re invested in him, and you believe in him as much as Gotham does and well…you feel bad for the guy. The physical transformation of Harvey into Two-Face is disturbing, unsettling and gruesome and Eckhardt plays the change very well.

It’s the eerie line the film often crosses, that makes you feel like you’re actually watching the six o’clock news, that makes the film so powerful and so effective. Even when the good guys feel like they’re winning and doing real good, it actually turns out that Joker just let them think that and turns everything on its head again. We may not understand why the Joker is doing what he’s doing (nor should we), but we quickly understand that noone in the film, not even Batman is safe. There are a fair number of notable and surprising deaths in the movie. Through it all, the Joker is unrelenting, as the film itself is also, and just keeps coming at you. The Joker has engaged Batman in a psychological war of wits, and for the entire film, he wins it. His goal in the end, of course, is not to force Batman to turn himself in, but cross the lines he swore never to cross, and each small defeat Batman suffers in the film (and there are plenty) makes him tread dangerously close to that line of becoming nothing more than a vigilante.

Never before has a superhero movie shown such a fallen hero as Batman in this second film from Christopher Nolan. Batman fails in almost every conceivable way during the course of the movie. Every choice he makes is either only a temporary save or effectively spells doom for someone else. It’s alot like the war on terror when you sit back and think about it, and its what the Joker represents. Anarchy. A world without rules. Why terrorists are so effective is they know how to hurt the rest of us. As the Joker points out in the movie, the reason he can’t lose, despite all of Batmans intelligence and strength, is because he (the Joker) has no rules, no codes and no morals. The rest of us and Batman do. The only choice is to give in, thus letting the terrorists win, or keep fighting them and creating more in the process. Its lose-lose. Again, a lot like watching the news nowadays when you think about it.

Not since the first “Lord of the Rings” movie in 2001 has a genre-event film so poignantly echoed the sentiment and realities of the post 9/11 world as well as the events within The Dark Knight. Batman, despite popular opinion (still largely based on the horribly unredeemable 1960’s TV show), has always been like the rogue cop, willing to go out to the edge and do the dirty work noone else can, but while he may teater on the edge of the line, he never crosses it. This film unflinchingly displays the criminal and terrorist reaction to the world fighting back, as was beautifully set up in the final speech from Gordon on the rooftop to conclude Batman Begins. The criminals won’t back down without a fight, and we get caught up in an eye for an eye war with them, we get dragged down to there level. By the end of the film, Batman (and the audience) gets as close as possible to that breaking point and the rules of Nolan’s epic Batman franchise once again shift to the left quite unexpectedly.

As I said earlier, the film is utterly devoid of hope or redemption and will leave you feeling a bit like you just watched your dog get run over and then got kicked in the nuts on a cold January afternoon in a snowstorm. It’s a calculated struggle of good versus evil and the meaning of both. It’s a portrait of the global landscape today and the constant feeling of helplessness at the hands of would-be terrorists. And its simply one of the finest crime drama’s ever made that also happens to be a superhero movie. And in the world we now live in, why would we want anything else from our superhero movies? The Dark Knight is not only the greatest superhero film to date, but easily the best film of 2008 and quite possibly one of the best films ever made.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Written by Christopher & Jonathan Nolan
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Micheal Caine & Morgan Freeman

OK. The wait is over, and I need to get this out of the way right now…The Dark Knight is not perfect. Oh, oops, sorry, actually it is. All those with seemingly unsatisfiable expectations, you needn’t worry. I, like many, have been waiting for this sequel for over three years, but it wasn’t until the movie started that I realized I didn’t truly know what I was waiting for. The Heath Ledger (I’ll get to him later) hype had occupied my mind more than anything else, and it kept me from completely understanding what I was expecting. I did know that I expected an improvement on Batman Begins, an excellent movie to begin with, but The Dark Knight surpasses it’s predecessor in every aspect by prodigious margins.

Batman (Christian Bale) has been on The Joker’s (Heath Ledger) tail for a while and with the help of good friend Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) as well as the newly appointed D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), they hope to take the insane criminal mastermind down. Dent may be the only man, not wearing a bat costume, that’s brave enough to take down crime at any cost, to protect Gotham city. Things are not so simple however as The Joker threatens to kill more and more unless The Batman reveals his true identity. How Batman/Bruce Wayne, as well as those close to him, will react to this disastrous situation is fascinating. To make matters worse, every time a step in the right direction is taken towards putting a stop to the Joker’s madness, it is revealed that those steps are apart of the Joker’s grand plan. I do not want to spoil anything, so I will not go into specific details, but the events unravel in tragic, devastating ways.

Christopher Nolan has crafted the perfect Batman story. This is the best single tale in the extensive Batman mythos. I have trouble imagining a better movie or comic book ever coming to be (never say never). Needlessly to say this is the best shot movie of the year and then some. Nolan appropriately highlights the explosions and various action. More importantly he magnifies the small character moments, getting us so emotionally involved we forget we are watching a movie. Surprisingly, he creates his most suspenseful film and in the most dire of scenes, we actually lose our nerves (in a good way). He does what great directors aspire to do, but it’s a rare happenstance, Nolan grabs his audience early on and never lets go. He commands us, we bend to his will. This is the epitome of masterful film making. The screenplay is full of surprises and daring decisions. The story unfolds in an epic fashion, a crime-drama of the highest quality. Important events are scattered through the beginning, middle and end, always at just the right time. The script has it’s humour, but less so than Begins. Knight is relentlessly dark and bleak, it contains the strongest of moral complexities. Yes, Batman is forced to make tough decisions, but so do many key characters, as well as all the citizens of Gotham. How would you react? At one point The Joker puts a televised hit out on a character. He threatens to blow up a hospital if that character is not dead in 60 minutes. There are no easy answers to the dilemmas contained herein and the consequential soul-searching is not always pleasant. Overall, the dialog is a lot tighter, another factor in making The Dark Knight so believable we find ourselves lost within it.

Of course the acting is tremendous. The supporting cast is flawless, providing one of the deeper casts of characters in recent memory. Leading the way is Aaron Eckhart, who plays his character perfectly, with just the right amount of emotion and complexity. Harvey Dent is one of my favourite characters from the comic books, and it is very pleasing to see him get a proper treatment. Also of note, Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes (one of very few downsides to Batman Begins) as Rachel Dawes, and is much better and therefore much less distracting than Holme’s
sub-par, boring, unlikeable performance. Two wonderful actors, Micheal Caine and Morgan Freeman, get much less screen time this go-around. This is most appropriate because it is hard not to smile when they are in frame, and The Dark Knight ain’t meant to be too smiley. Gary Oldman continues his brilliant job as the endearing, admirable Lt. Jim Gordon. Oldman brings a kindness as well as a respectable matureness to the role and it is a terrific effort.

Christian Bale brings the true Batman of the comic books to life. He embodies The Dark Knight like none before him, and it’s hard to imagine anyone else ever taking the part. Bale is fierce, confident, conflicted, and powerful as Batman. His “bat rasp” is put to even better use, he strikes fear in his enemies as well as the audience. As Bruce Wayne, Bale is arrogant and incontrovertibly intelligent. He gives his character such an intricate level of substance that it’s difficult not to think Oscar. I truly think Christian Bale is one of the better actors working today. He could play anything. He could take the most serious award-contending roles, which he sometimes does do, but here he takes a character that has been degraded in the past and manages to turn it into a most serious award-contending role. This is surprising to some, but for an avid reader of the source material, it is nothing short of necessary to make the movies as great as they should be.

Now for what I assume everyone is curious about, Heath Ledger’s invention of The Joker. The late Ledger was already an accomplished actor with such brilliant turns in, among others, Monster’s Ball, Brokeback Mountain and I’m Not There. But here is his master work. His performance is nothing short of awe-inspiring, to put it in perspective, it is of Daniel Day-Lewis quality. Ledger’s Joker is menacing, horrifying, thunderous and darkest of dark. Some scenes, and you can certainly credit the writing and directing for this, are unexpectedly terrifying. I really want to get the point across that this is the most frightening, haunting and harrowing picture of the year, and that Heath Ledger deserves infinite praise for making it so. He absolutely disappears into the character, like few in the trade can, there is no trace of him in the film. The unforgettable, hostilely convoluted performance is, in my mind, a no-brainer to win the Supporting Actor Oscar. I would be very disappointed otherwise. Though it is hard to escape the movie without being disappointed. We have lost an immensely talented actor, who would have had a long, magnificent career.

The Dark Knight is not comic-booky at all. It is ironic that the actual comic books the movie is based on are not “comic-booky” either. It is unfortunate that such a limitless medium is seen in such a specific way by those who have not discovered it’s possibilities. The movie is assuredly not as simple as good versus evil, but rather an examination of what good and evil really are and if they even exist. An elaborate meditation on right and wrong. A piece of extraordinary depth. This is why we go to the movies: To be moved, challenged, surprised and entertained. The Dark Knight is a crime-drama on par with the greatest works in the genre (Scorsese, Mann, Coppola). It is also, quite easily in fact, the greatest superhero film of all-time. Most importantly, it is one of the better motion pictures to ever grace the sacred silver screen.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Andie (Briana Evigan) belongs to the 410 crew. They’re composed of the greatest dancers on the street who frolic around disturbing the peace with their talents. After disputes with the crew leave Andie on her own, she gathers up the school’s most talented misfits to create an impressive dance crew to gain respect.

If you’re familiar with the formula, then you know the outcome. It is nothing new, nor does it try to be. But with the talented cast of stylish dancers, this film exceeds expectations and looks good while doing so. If only the film was all dance moves that tell a story, rather than mixing it with slang terms and preaching right and wrong in the end. All of this is unnecessary and could have been filled in with more dancing.

Energetic, explosive and enthralling dance moves are what entices the viewers and basically makes them forget how predictable and cliched the storyline is. One character in particular really stood out with impeccable dance skills, Moose (Adam G. Sevani), who blew me away in the final dance scene. It is clear that this is all style and no substance. But you know what, I didn’t care and neither should you. The cast is young and good-looking, the characters are gratifying, and the dance scenes are dazzling. It is everything a movie like this needs in order for the viewers to forget all the blemishes.

The acting isn’t always good, but these unknowns look comfortable in front of a camera which lines them up for much broader roles in the future. It’s very predictable and widely cliched, but what else is there to add to such overused material? You will be overwhelmed by the well-choreographed flips, spins and rhythm of each movement.

Everything in between the smooth movements and free-styling galore plays out like another insipid melodrama, complete with romance and violent stir-ups. Director Jon Chu does what he can and makes it work. I highly recommend it for some great set pieces, magnificent tactics in the dancing portions, and an attractive cast that elevate it beyond its overly familiar plot.

The Dance-Off Edition DVD special features that include deleted scenes, music videos, outtakes, Lead Actor Robert Hoffman Video Prank, Outlaws of Hip Hop, and The Making of Step Up 2. 3.5/5 stars

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Two sets of half brothers become charged with anger after the death of their father, a man who treated one half of the family with violence and resentment, and the other half with respect and loyalty. The poorly treated half of the Hayes family said a few disrespectful words at their father’s funeral. This commenced a feud between the two families, who then resort to the right to bear arms in order to solve these disputes.

Shotgun Stories forges a righteous path for revenge stories with an important message, which ranks it as last year’s most powerful film. First-time writer/director Jeff Nichols might spark a new wave of American filmmakers with his style and the obvious conviction of his work. It’s tightly edited and marvelously triumphant in its depiction of right and wrong. The casting was done wisely. Although actor Michael Shannon’s character seems one-dimensional until rage hits him, most of the performances are very good at capturing the essence of these individuals. Every performance is dead on.

The film has a very slow pace that centers on developing these characters. The problem is we have characters here that have bullet wounds and are patched up with bandages and we have no insight into where or how these wounds occurred. For example, Son Hayes (Micheal Shannon) has bullet wounds in his back from protecting his brothers. But where, when, and why did this happen? Same goes with Shampoo (G. Alan Wilkins). He has bandages all over himself and we have no recollection as to how this happened. Small things like that deserve to be answered.

It picks up the pace about halfway through and becomes exactly the film I was expecting — a tense, harrowing decent into revenge-fueled hatred. Powerful, important, and very American, the intensity this story has makes it a must-see. The score is ideal for a movie like this, giving off an appropriate vibe. Jeff Nichols has a way of putting a spellbinding trance on us and guides us to the meaningful ending. The PG-13 rating is very appropriate for the violence occurring in America. Everyone should see this film before reaching out for a loaded weapon and maybe they will think about the consequences of revenge and the long-lasting effects it has on people.

Shotgun Stories is the most American film of the year and possibly one that will be remembered for years to come. Jeff Nichols knows what he is doing, and proves it by demonstrating a new kind of justice, one that forgives and forgets instead of descending into brutality. It’s a wake-up call to America. Special features include an audio commentary with director Jeff Nichols, an isolated score track composed and performed by the band Lucero, a photo gallery, and a Shotgun Stories trailer. 4/5 stars

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Cassandra’s Dream (2007) is a London based film written and directed by Woody Allen now out on DVD. This crime drama stars Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell as two brothers in need of fast cash and who are willing to do anything to obtain it.

Ian (McGregor) and Terry (Farrell) are two middle-class English brothers chasing after their financial dreams. Ian, the more stable and prosperous of the two, is a capitalist who is working on a scam to buy hotels in California. Terry is a local mechanic struggling with drug, alcohol, and gambling addictions. The brothers pool their money together and buy a small sailboat which they name Cassandra’s Dream after one of Terry’s winning race dogs. Ian becomes infatuated with Angela, a local gold digger actress (Hayley Atwell). Ian tries to impress Angela by driving fancy cars (borrowed from Terry’s shop) and buying her expensive gifts with Terry’s gambling winnings. Quickly Terry’s winning streak comes to an end when he owes 90,000 pounds. The brothers go to their Uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson), a rich plastic surgeon arriving back home from a business trip in Asia, asking for money. Uncle Howard agrees to help them with their money problems only if they agree to kill a business associate who is going to make Howard’s illegal activities public. The brothers are so desperate for money they agree to do their Uncle’s dirty work, but they are not prepared for the consequences of their actions.

I was fairly disappointed with Woody Allen’s effort with this movie. The film seemed to be a side project, which contained no meaning or importance to the director. A local High School theater company could of done better. The actors were left to stumble through their lines which was most apparent in the under the tree scene when Uncle Howard is asking the brothers to kill his business associate. Tom Wilkinson carried the scene with struggled improvisation.

From the very beginning the musical score (Philip Glass) was over the top. The music was on the verge of annoying and distracting. The score took away from my connection and empathy with the main characters. The musical score was more appropriate for a fight scene or a car chase not an emotional dark drama. 

The film would of benefited from a role reversal between Farrell and McGregor. Farrell’s portrayal of a sensitive and damaged workingman is just not convincing. McGregor, notable the better actor of the two, would of made Terry believable and provoked sympathy from the viewers.

I was excited to watch a new offering from a great director/writer, which also contained one of my favorite actors, but I was disappointed. The film was sloppily put together from the writing, directing, and even the music. I wouldn’t call this film a nightmare, but it’s not a pleasant dream either.

Rated PG-13

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Directed by Steven Sawalich, Music Within tells the true story of Richard Pimentel (Ron Livingston), a brilliant public speaker who enlists in Vietnam to help secure enrollment into college, and who loses his hearing in a bomb blast. He returns from the war and finds his true purpose in life; to help disabled Americans find work and he becomes the voice for there cause.

After surviving both a tramatic childhood and Vietnam, brilliant and natural public speaker Richard Pimental returns from the war having lost his hearing. He enters college and teaches himself to lip read and meets Art Honeyman (Michael Sheen), a brilliant genius stuck in a wheelchair with a disfiguring condition called cerebral-palsy, a condition where the person’s brain works normally, but there body doesn’t. After viewing how Art is treated by the students around them, Richard befriends him and they soon meet Christine (Melissa George), a sexually freeminded young woman who falls for Richard. Soon, Richard finds his calling and begins to help other disabled vets find jobs, and then begins to help all Americans with disabilities. Government begins to take notice, and Richard is tasked with writing a handbook for American companies to follow in hiring disabled Americans. Richard eventually travels the country to help major companies and levels of government to train its employers on how to treat the disabled and how to hire them, and it all eventually leads to the inclusion of the disabled Americans act in the early 1990’s.

At once a highly moving, poignant and incredibly well acted film, Music Within will also most likely make even the most callis person feel slightly guilty. The movie’s message is a powerful one, that you can’t treat people differently just because they don’t look like you, and the elegant writing of screenwriters Bret McKinney, Mark Andrew Olson and Kelly Kennemer drives that point home in a very moving and identifiable way. Like women’s rights, the civil rights movement and all the other struggles of the time, it is easy for us today to forget how it was just a few short decades ago, and that if not for people like Richard, a whole group of Americans would have no voice. It’s a story I’m not ashamed to admit I was unaware of, taking it for granted that the disabled Americans act had always been there and I had no idea it was so recent before they finally found that success. I doubt I am alone in that statement, and its why the film is so important and why the fact that its so well done makes it even more remarkable.

The performances by the lead actors also make the movie enjoyable to watch and very inspiring. Ron Livingston’s portrayal of Pimental is extremely well done, and subtly layered in its deepness, playing both his witty, playful and romantic side with Art and Christine and also his passionate drive, anger and ethusiasm while championing his cause. Michael Sheen’s performance as Art is simply phenomonal, and award worthy. He never comes off as cliche, ridiculous or a figure to pitty, as is usually the case when even the best actors play people with disabilities this extreme, instead he comes off a charismatic and brilliant companion to Richard and steals more than one scene in the movie. Completing the leads is Melissa George, who doesn’t seem as comfortable in the movie right away, but grows with her character and eventually has one of the more poignant scenes with Richard near the end of the film on his front steps. It’s a shorter film, and she plays a smaller role within it, but her character does have the biggest change in the film, which (eventually) George plays quite nicely.

Film’s like this often seem like they’re waving a finger at you, trying to make you feel bad, which at times this one will feel that way, but mostly it is just an inspired story of a true American who stood up for what was wrong and changed it. An emotional, heartfelt and compelling drama that is highly recommended.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

This 2005 flick, written and directed by Adam Rapp, is mostly unentertaining and slightly annoying.  While the film immediately works to portray a melancholy, alternative-lifestyle-feel, it merely comes off as trying to be artsy, rather than actually containing any elements that would actually make it an art film.

 Zooey Deschanel who gave stellar performances in films such as The Good Girl (2002), Eulogy (2004) and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (2005), stars in Winter Passing (2005), but falls far from the cinematic tree she earlier climbed so high in.  Deschanel plays Reese Holden, the daughter of Don Holden (Ed Harris), a famous, yet reclusive writer who has hidden some manuscripts very desired by the literary world.  After the death of her mother and an emotional separtion with her father, Reese is offered a large sum of money to obtain and release the manuscripts.  As a struggling actor, Reese accepts and ventures home only to find that everything she knew about ‘home’ has changed.

So many elements of this film fail to work.  The character psychology is lacking and the performances are just blatantly unbelievable.  As a usual fan of Ed Harris, I found myself very befuddled and equally dissapointed with his strange bearded character; it merely seemed like a facade to hide his very flat, unfaceted acting.  Will Ferrell even makes an appearance as Corbit, Don Holden’s live-in (friend?).  As he was clearly enlisted as comic relief, he does this in his usual confused, unattached way, but even this doesn’t work for me, it simply falls flat.  We learn almost nothing about Corbit throughout the film and his believability is on par with Maggie Smith in a Sci-Fi flick, it is just so unlikely.   As the film slowly moves to transform Reese and give her a new perspective on the world, you just don’t care by the middle of the film what happens to her and by the end, can you even imagine?

The film just goes nowhere.  Reese Holden is full of angst and confusion, but it just does not pull you in like its meant to.  I lost interest throughout the course of the film and found myself looking at my watch, a tell-tale sign of a bad movie.  I do wish I could get that time back and at the same time ask Adam Rapp why it was so necessary to invest in Winter Passing.  Maybe there is some emotional attachment, or some real-life experience projected in this film by Rapp.  But if this is the case, what a boring experience it must have been, and to be honest, I’m surprised he even remembers, because Winter Passing is truly forgettable.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

If you enjoyed Thomas McCarthy’s beautiful 2003 film, The Station Agent, I certainly would not let his most recent film, The Visitor, slip through the theatres without seeing it first. This film, starring Richard Jenkins, is touching, vocal and ultimately meaningful, providing realistic and believable performances.

This film follows a lifeless professor through the strains of his everyday–a life that we quickly understand no longer has meaning or prowess. As we reluctantly watch him drown in the sorrows of his own repetition, the viewer cannot help but attach themselves to his life, hoping that over the course of the film he will find passion and beauty in something–anything.

Through a real estate mix-up, Walter befriends an immigrant couple who briefly inhabit his apartment along side of him. Though this relationship is appropriately awkward and uncomfortable, Walter’s love for music manifests itself in his new roommate’s African drum and one cannot help but become involved in this unlikely partnership. Partly about music, but more about unjust social policies, this film concentrates its well-spoken commentary on immigration in America. The film is not completely austere however, The Visitor comes complete with a muted taste of humor. Be it sublte and sharp, McCarthy does not take himself too seriously, allowing a wide array of viewers a chance to enjoy it.

Though the story may unfold slowly for some, the film works to come full circle at the end, so if you do lose interest, by the end you will have forgotten why. Aside from the eloquent narrative, it is refreshing to stray from the ever-present college hipster film and move toward a film that focuses on the middle-aged man and his journey through life. The Visitor is beautifully presented with more action than talk and the camera work lends a hint of realism, reasonably appropriate for the theme. The performances are pleasing and though the characters’ motivations sometimes seem to move at the speed of honey, the poignant nature and heart-felt performances really make you believe in what you are watching and may even change any preconcieved notions of immigration policies you may have. This film is expressive and important–definately worth the money to see in the theatre.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

A dark comedy written and directed by Martin McDonagh, In Bruges stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson as two hit men who are sent to lay low in Bruges, Belgium after a botched assasination job for there boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes).

After accidently killing a child, Ray (Farrell) and his partner Ken (Gleeson) are sent to the medieval city of Bruges to lay low while the heat wears down and there boss, Harry can figure out what to do with them. Ray, wracked with guilt over what he’s done, is immediately turned off by Bruges and complains about being stuck there, while Ken quickly discovers all the hidden tourist treasures in the ancient city. The two men not only differ on Bruges itself, but religion, death and the meaning behind the great mysteries of life as they spend time together.

While Ken continues to find fascination with the ancient city, Ray continues to be bored, that is until he meets Chloe (Clemence Posey), a free-spirited woman who, along with her ex-boyfriend hustles tourists for there money. Ray convinces Chloe to go out to dinner with him and along the way his temper gets the best of him, as he gets into a few sorted adventures, most of which center around a dwarf. Meanwhile, Harry calls Ken and asks him to quietly kill Ray, a punishment for his killing the child, and Ken must wrestle within himself to discover wiether or not he can bring himself to kill his friend and partner.

Something I found interesting (and ironic) within the movie, is that Ray is constantly comparing Bruges to purgatory, a place of neverending torment and torture. I found this interesting because that’s exactly what it feels like to watch this movie, which obviously takes place In Bruges. The movie starts dull, ends dull and reaches new points of boredom and dullness inbetween. Not helping is the sleep inducing musical score, and very bleak locales in the movie. While, at times, shot majestically by McDonaugh, they mostly only help to make the viewer, like the characters, feel trapped in this boring city. Now, I realize (and appreciate to a degree) that this is probably a point that someone who enjoyed the film could easily make for liking it. I, however, did not like the film at all, and so enhancing the feeling of entrapment only made things worse. I felt often like the movie had no purpose, no ending in sight and no idea how to resolve itself.

For starters, the plot and characters are dreadfully predictable and unlikable. Even the side characters are unlikable, especially the dwarf, who is a racist bastard hopped up on horse tranquilizers, screaming about the inevitable battle to come between the whites and minorities. Most movies of this sort will at least endow the female lead with some sort of sweetness or innocence to play off the dark hearted anti-heroes like Ray and Ken. Not this film. No sir. Chloe, while insanely attractive and sexy, is almost as bad as the two hitmen, praying on tourists and selling drugs in a city that apparently has no crime enforcement. To be fair, small attempts are made to give some of the characters redeemable qualities, or at least redeemable ideals, but just because an otherwise dispicable character says things like “You can’t kill kids,” doesn’t make them any more likable. It just means they have common sense.

Every plot “twist” can be seen miles ahead of time, so much infact that it becomes frustrating how much behind the movie can get to where you have already guessed it would go. Mainly the problem with In Bruges is that it is essentially one set of poorly written, unlikable characters running into and pissing off other poorly written and unlikable characters, until eventually most of them are dead or dying at the end of the movie. Never before have I even considered so heavily to giving a movie the unheard of “Zero stars,” but I came very close in this one. Basically the presence of the lovely Clemence Posey is worth a “1/2 star” rating on its own, otherwise the movie is utter rubbish.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Directed by Kar Wai Wong, who also co-wrote the screenplay along with Lawrence Block, My Blueberry Nights marks the feature film debut of popular singer and songwriter Norah Jones, who portrays the role of a girl with a broken heart who finds comfort in the blueberry pies baked by small cafe owner (Jude Law) before going on a soul searching trip across the country.

After being mugged in a New York subway and learning her boyfriend is cheating on her, broken hearted Elizabeth (Jones) stumbles into a small cafe and spills her soul to owner Jeremy (Law) over a slice of blueberry pie. She then gets on a bus and travels to Memphis, taking on two waitressing jobs, one during the day and one in the late evening at a bar to keep herself busy. While in Memphis she meets Arnie (David Strathairn), an alcoholic police officer who is having trouble accepting his recent seperation from his flirtatious wife, Sue-Lynn (Rachel Weisz). While on her journey, Elizabeth keeps in touch with Jeremy by sending him postcards, and he begins trying to track her down. Not wanting to stay in one place too long, Elizabeth then moves on and meets a charismatic gambling addict named Leslie (Natalie Portman), who along with all the other offbeat characters she ecounters help her figure out her questions about love and life.

Despite featuring an all-star cast, Blueberry nights is something just on the otherside of boring, and flirts seriously with the idea of becoming a completly horrible and irredeemable film, but manages a few moments, unfortunately very few and far between, that make the movie even somewhat worth watching. First is the plot, well if you can call it that, mostly the movie appears, by what I could tell, to be about nothing. Yes, you can grasp that the Norah Jones character basically snaps after her longterm boyfriend cheats on her and she runs around the country looking for people worse than him to convince her she’s still a good person, but the film just crawls, and I mean crawls along at a snails pace and ultimately gets nowhere in the process. Then there is the non-existent acting ability of Norah Jones herself, who is the main character and the one we’re supposed to be invested in, but who can barely manage an ounze of genuine emotion. I’ve seen people on reality TV with more talent and emotion than Jones could muster in this film, which is sad because she is an amazing songwriter and singer, and I love her music, but she certainly can NOT act.

The rest of the cast has moments, but also mostly seem lost in the script. David Strathairn’s booze-hounding cop comes off as cliche and uninteresting. Rachel Weisz just seems to be screaming all the time and isn’t believable with her cheesy southern accent. Jude Law is barely in the movie, has a few moments of okayness and then mostly seems to struggle with trying to carry Jones thru there supposed tender scenes together. It’s just sad to see this collection of A-list talent and oscar nominees look so lost and confused and…well, bored. You can literally feel the boredom from some of these actors as they read there lines, which makes you wonder if maybe Strathairn really was getting drunk, just to cope with the horrible movie he found himself in. Then, just as you’re ready to give up all hope, the skies clear and the heavens part and lovely Natalie Portman arrives to bring the movie some (and I must stress the word some) redeemable quality. Her character basically sucks as badly as the rest of the them, but Portman seems to try her best to inject some life into it and the film as well, and does better than the rest at carrying Jones thru some scenes.

Overall, the film is horrible and a complete waste of these actor’s talents. I have not seen any of Director Kar Wai Wong’s other films, and this film certainly doesn’t inspire me to do so. Despite some beautifully shot street scenes, Wong just never manages to produce anything compelling or interesting on the screen that makes this film worth watching. Norah Jones should stick to her music, which I have a feeling she won’t have a choice on, and leave the bad movies from singers-turned wannabee actors to Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. At least we all knew ahead of time there movies would be horrible.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Based off the bestselling novel by Michael Sharra, Gods and Generals is a prequel to the 1993 hit Gettysburg and follows the complex events from the beginning of the U.S. Civil War in 1861 thru the events preceeding the battle of Gettysburg in July of 1863, as depicted in that film. The film was written for the screen and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell, who also directed Gettsyburg, and the film was produced masterfully by Ted Turner.

With a magnificant scope, brilliant cinematography, painstaking detail and a high level of historical accuracy, Gods and Generals chronicles the rise of the Confederacy under the leadership of General Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall) and General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (Stephen Lang) in the early years of the deadly civil war that tore the United States apart for four bloody years. The film begins just days after the attack on Fort Sumter, and after President Lincoln has called for 75,000 volunteers to qwell the rebellion in the cotton states. Lee is offered overall command of the U.S. army, but refuses out of loyalty for Virgina, a state about to join in secession from the union and officially join the Confederacy, and who gives Lee command of the army of Northern Virginia. General Jackson leaves his teaching post at the Virginia military institute to recruit and train the Virginia common army volunteers, and the early stages of the war becomes about who will attack first, when and where?

The film focuses on the three biggest and most important battles of the early part of the war, beginning with the first major engagement between North and South at First Manassas. It is there that General Jackson and his brigade earn there reputation and legendary nickname of “Stonewall” and where the South proves the war will not be a quick 90 day affair as many people previously thought. As the following two years progress, so does the status and acclaim of Jackson and his men, as the South wins one major battle after another, including the battles of Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville, as depicted in the film. Chancellorsville is thought by many historians to be Lee and the South’s brightest moment, but it does come at a high cost, one that will drastically affect the remaining years in the war, beginning with Lee’s bold choice to invade the North and the inevitable battle at the small Pennsylvania farm town of Gettysburg, only 2 months after the stunning Confederate victory at Chancellorsville.

Few historic films take the time or take pride in such authenticity as is on display in both of these Civil War masterpieces by Ronald F. Maxwell. The films perfectly capture the times and the struggles this nation went thru to become the nation we are today. It was simply a different time, and these films serve as an invaluable time capsule of information about our past, a past that must be understood to understand our identity as a nation. In those times people lived more simply, yet more passionately as well. By focusing centrally on Stonewall Jackson and the South, Maxwell allows us to see what it was like to be there. For Jackson, like many of the day, his priorities were straight and he knew them well and would die to protect them and his way of life. God came first, his home (in Virginia) second, then his country. People didn’t yet grasp the idea of a truely United States, and thats why this war was so important. You feel the passion and religious ferver of Jackson and many others in the film.

Wonderfully, Maxwell takes time, between battles and military strategy, to focus on the small moments. We see the struggles of the civilians in the South, and spirit of the Southern women. We see the connection the troops and generals have with the civilians and we begin to understand the difference in lifestyles between North and South, and the difference to those fighting it. The North, right or wrong, was the invaders and the South, right or wrong, was defending there own way of life, and there own homes, families and towns. There is an elegance to that way of life on display, the simpleness of it, and it can be sad to realize that way of life is now gone forever. That was the price the South paid for waging this war, they lost there way of life, and the film (produced by Ted Turner) is obviously sympathetic to that idea of loss, and to the mighty Southern cause, but it also understands and illustrates the bold mission of unity and freedom that the North undertakes.

For fans of Gettysburg, the film is a wonderful companion and prequel. While not as condensed, or as long as Gettysburg (which focused on a single three day battle), Gods and Generals is a remarkable acheivement with a tremendous scope to it. As a Civil War buff, it would’ve been nice to see the battle of Antietam, or even the events of Fort Sumter or even view Lincoln once or twice, but the focus is on Lee, Jackson and the army of Northern Virginia, and in that the film exceeds even the most modest Civil War entusiast’s expectations. While central figures from Gettysburg, such as Lee, Longstreet and Pickett (ironically portrayed by Stephen Lang in that film) have been recasted, other actors do return to wonderfully reprise and expand there roles. Brian Mallon does a great job in an expanded role for Union General Winfield Scott Hancock. And indeed the regiment of the 20th Maine, heroically depicted in Gettysburg returns, and we see the formation of that unit and the struggles they endure before that fateful day. Jeff Daniels returns as Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and again is allowed a few moments to give elegant and masterfully written speeches. C. Thomas Howell reprises his role as Chamberlain’s younger brother Tom, and Kevin Conway again gives a wonderful performance as the fiery irishmen, Sgt. Buster Kilrain.

But the film’s real star, and focus is on Stephen Lang’s awe-inspiring, mighty, tender and award worthy portrayal of the legendary General Jackson. Jackson was a man of high principles. A god fearing, highly religious and highly loyal soldier, Jackson felt it was his duty, and the duty of all southerner’s to destroy the “yankee invaders” who had dared presume to invade there land or try to dictate and inflict there way of life upon them. Stephen Lang does such a great job of portraying the complexities within Jackson. He has so many sides to him, and Lang hits them all perfectly. We see his fearlessness and determination in battle, as well as his hatred of the enemy and his desire to destroy them. But we also see his tender side, both in lovely scenes with his wife, Anna (Kali Rocha), and in heartbreakingly sweet moments with a young southern girl named Jane (Lydia Jordan).

The Civil War is undeniably the single most important event in our history, and its a blessing to us all that there are filmmakers today that realize that, respect that and who are painstakingly recreating that horribly bloody war onscreen for the rest of us, and future generations to see. How important was the Civil War? Yes, it restored the Union and freed the slaves, but it was much more than that. It gave us our identitfy. The great Civil War historian, the late Shelby Foote, perfectly described what the Civil War accomplished and why it is the most central and important moment in our nations history. He said, “Before the War, it was said ‘The United States are.’ Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always ‘the United States is,” as we say today without being self conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an ‘is.‘”

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Written and Directed by Harris Goldberg, Numb stars Matthew Perry as a chronically depressed man who suddenly feels the desire to cure himself after meeting the girl of his dreams. The film also co-stars film veterans Kevin Pollack and Mary Steenburgen.

Screenwriter Hudson Milbank (Perry) suffers from a rare mental disorder called acute depersonalization, a disorder essentially leaving him disconnected, devoid of any feelings or emotions. He is obsessed with the grotesque level of sadness he feels on a daily basis and wastefully goes thru the motions. Humerously, he gets thru the average day watching lesbian excercise classes and the Golf channel while downing pill after pill in an attempt to cure himself. Doctor after Doctor seems at a loss to help him and merely throws a new prescription at him, in an attempt to help. Finally, on pure chance, Hudson meets the girl of his dreams, Sarah (Lynn Collins), and tries harder to cure his condition and win her over.

A dark comedy to be sure, Numb still does have some light humor within it and does a respectable job of showcasing Matthew Perry’s trademark wit and dry humor that made him so popular on Friends and in The Whole Nine Yards, however Perry never quite does reach the level of greatness he achieved in those past roles. In this role he never quite seems to “go for it” as an actor, the script often calls for him to be alone and brooding with some emotion or another behind the surface, and Perry’s lack of ability to convey that second layer, that deepness within the character is disappointing and often frustrating.

However, Perry’s chemistry with Lynn Collins is very good, and she brings a great, much needed upness to the film. She is impossibly adorable in the role, as her character attempts to both understand what Hudson is going threw and help him move past it. Her speech about what she thinks love should be is incredibly sweet and moving. As a result, I found myself rooting for them as a couple, more so than Hudson himself. I wanted him to move past his condition so they would suceed, and Sarah would be happy more so than Hudson, and perhaps thats a failing in the movie or perhaps my failing in identifying with him. Either way, it didn’t work the way it should’ve and that brought my opinion of the movie down considerably.

Overall, it is a okay (but nowhere near great) film that is extremely serious with some light humor and some cute moments sprinkled in. I think its main problem may’ve been its attempt at balancing the humerous moments with the serious, dry portrayal of Hudson’s condition. The viewer can sometimes be at a loss as to wiether or not its okay to laugh with Hudson or laugh at him or laugh at all. The direction just gets so serious most of the movie that the intended thoughts and emotions don’t quite come across very well, and to me, when you can’t clearly express where you want the audience to go emotionally, then you’ve lost them.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Written by Barry Levy and Directed by Pete Travis, Vantage Point centers around an assasination attempt on the President of the United States of America. The high speed political thriller is told and re-told from several different perspectives of those involved and those in the crowd.

In Spain, the President of the United States (William Hurt) is shot before making a speech to promote a peace summit. The paniced crowd runs in all directions, and just as secret service agents, reporters and everyone else are all starting to try and make sense of things, a large explosion goes off, killing many civilians and injuring numerous more. That is the stage for this ensemble thriller, edited with urgency and moving at a mile a minute to slowly reveal the truth behind who did it, why and the attempted cover-up.

Most movies these days have the burden of stretching maybe an hour’s worth of quality story into a full length movie. This is usually accomplished by stretching out an action scene, such as a chase thru crowded streets or a high speed car chase, or adding what I like to call “fluff plot”, where a movie needlessly develops a minor character more than necessary and then kills them off shortly later. Basically, in these cases, the film is banking on gripping the audience by hopefully making them feel attached to certain smaller characters in the movie and then killing them to add a sense of urgency or drama, a feeling that anyone could die at any moment.

In Vantage Point, Director Pete Travis uses the full arsenal, attempting to literally take 20 minutes of story and see how far he can stretch it, retelling the same 20 minutes several times, sometimes to quite annoying lengths. The first time or so, its quite captivating to see the assasination attempt and what occurs afterward and then get the “cliffhanger” ending to that segement and then jump to the next point of view. About a half-hour into the movie, however, it gets really old. Finally, for about the last 35 minutes or so, the movie does break this mold, opens up a bit and concludes the film cohesively, jumping from character to character as the story wraps up, but before that it is an aggrivating political thriller, which attempts to add every concievable twist it can. Wiether this is because the film was just poorly written, or maybe they couldn’t decide where to go and so they did it all, or maybe its just an excuse to stretch the movie out, which is my best guess, but whatever it was, it didn’t work very well.

Filled with many recognizable actors, including Dennis Quaid, Forrest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, Matthew Fox, Zoe Saldana and Bruce McGill, Vantage Point does sport a remarkably well casted ensemble, however the constant gimics and last second twists to stretch the story is what ultimately hurts the movie. It seems like it would’ve made a great episode of “24″ or another such show, but as movie, it just doesn’t have enough to it to make it very satisfying.

The above author's byline must be attached to the work if being distributed.

Directed by: Marc Schoelermann.

Starring: Milo Ventimiglia as Ted Grey, Michael Weston as Jake Gallo, Alyssa Milano as Gwen Williamson, and Lauren Lee Smith as Juliette Bath.

Is there a doctor in the house? Okay, so Pathology deals with the other kind of doctor–the medical examiner. Pathology takes place in the ever dreaded morgue of a popular hospital. With gore abound and almost flawless execution, Marc Schoelermann creates a film to die for.

Ted Grey is an anatomy prodigy with wit that goes virtually unmatched. He joins a group of medical school students in residency and is quickly cast as an outsider due to his immense knowledge of gross human anatomy. He then meets the egotistical head honcho of the group Jake Gallo. After going on a drunken tour de slums (with Jake) in which Ted meets an immoral body guard and an even more immoral prostitute grandmother, Ted is shocked to discover the body of body guard in the morgue the next day. Of course, in his drunken stupor Ted wound up blacking out and can’t remember a