Here are the latest movie reviews by our reviewers and movie buffs such as yourself. Feel free to add your own 2¢ and whether you agree or disagree with other movie watchers. Looking for a specific movie title? Just enter the name (or partial name) of the movie in the search box to your right.


The Spiderwick Chronicles

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 1.5
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (2 votes, score: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 09 July 2008 by Derek Fleek

After stumbling upon a book in the basement on their new home, twin brothers Jared and Simon Grace, along with their sister Mallory, become pulled into a world of faeries and goblins. This book, known as The Spiderwick Field Guide, was written by a man named Arthur Spiderwick, who was abducted by faeries. It tells them everything they need to know about how to kill goblins and call upon mythical birds for help. Now they must protect the book from these creatures and find Arthur Spiderwick to put an end to the mayhem.

There really isn’t much good to say about this noisy and frantic fantasy that lacks all but a single good actor. Lazy CGI effects bombard the screen, along with screaming faeries that are about as annoying as nails on a chalk board. It is as if they took the cheapest computer technology available, enhanced it ever so slightly, then decided to add some impaired voices into the mix. Nick Nolte, Martin Short, and Seth Rogen are some of the loud, unfamiliar voices that crowd the screen. It really irks me that these characters are so pesky, yet they are voiced by some rather talented people.

It’s an irritating fantasy that seems rushed and deserved a release to the rental shelves rather than to the silver screen with such poor CGI work. Freddy Highmore plays dual roles comfortably, but the supporting cast of live actors (including Mary-Louise Parker who has shown some serious acting skills in the Showtime series Weeds) were unconvincing and the CGI beasties are about as irritating as an itch you can’t reach.

It starts off with dark, atmospheric set pieces that look really good and quickly turns into a ridiculous story gorged with silly moments. The film’s intentions were to take the audience into a world of fantasy (where ridiculous is acceptable to some extent). Instead, the film goes beyond preposterous and ends up being completely far-fetched.

So we have one good actor, several sub-par actors, an overuse of undernourished CGI effects, and a line of uninteresting characters. It’s a putrid mess, a film that doesn’t have a clue as to what defines entertainment and ends up being obnoxious. It is sad that none of this is quality entertainment and all of it is a nuisance to eyes and ears.

The entire film was a waste of time I could’ve spent watching some sort of solid entertainment, and a waste of money the filmmakers could’ve spent making a better film. The bottom line is it was nothing more than a noisy monstrosity and a eulogy to poorly executed family flicks. 1.5/5 stars


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

Comments (0)

“Definitely, Maybe”: definitely a romantic comedy.

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (3 votes, score: 4 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 09 July 2008 by foxility

I love romantic comedies; I hate to admit they are my guilty pleasure.  So, I knew I had to watch “Definitely, Maybe” starring the sexy Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz, and Isla Fisher.  It was directed and written by Adam Brooks who has much experience in the romantic comedy genre.

Ryan Reynolds plays Will Hayes a Manhattan professional getting a divorce while sharing custody with his 11 year old daughter Maya Hayes (Abigail Breslin).  Maya wants to know the story, from her father, of how her parents met.  He is reluctant to tell the story but decides to make her daughter guess which one of his 3 previous girlfriends is her mother. Will tells her of his college girlfriend Emily (Elizabeth Banks) from Wisconsin who he must leave behind to follow his political dreams and work for the Clinton campaign in New York.  Then comes Summer (Rachel Weisz) the beautiful writer who could get just about any man she wanted.  The third girl is his long time friend and confidant April (Isla Fisher).  Maya soon starts to put all the pieces together and as she uncovers who her mother is she also finds that relationships are complicated.

Writer/Director Adam Brooks adds a bit of spice by letting the audience peek into the Clinton campaign while taking you through the relationships of the main character, which I believe adds more depth to the story.  Although I enjoyed the film I had trouble with the ending but I can’t exactly put my finger on the reason why, I just felt un-emotional and as if it something was missing, other than that just an ok movie.


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

Comments (3)

The Love Guru

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 2.5
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 07 July 2008 by Solo72vh

We are first introduced to the Love Guru Pitka as he is speaking through a voice over machine (set to Morgan Freeman mode).  Mr. Myers breaks the fourth wall and begins to tell us of the story of his most difficult student and unexpected teacher.

Darren Roanoke played by Romany Malco (40 Year Old Virgin) is the star hockey player of the Toronto Maple Leafs he is lead his team to the Stanley Cup.  The problem is his game has been affected since he’s broken up with his wife played by Meagan Good (Wasit Deep).  The team’s owner Jane Bullard played by Jessica Alba (Fantastic Four) hires the Guru Pitka to help
Roanoke reconcile with his wife.  If the Guru can get Roanoke back with his wife he’ll be guaranteed a spot on Oprah, which will fulfill his dream of besting his rival Deepak Chopra.

Mike Myers developed this character after his father died.  The Guru Pitka was one of five characters that Mr. Myers performed in his 1994 stage show, (incidentally Austin Powers was another character in that same show).  The character is loosely based on new age guru Deepak Chopra (who incidentally has a cameo).

A lot of critics have slammed this movie for various reasons but I would like to say that there are some laughs in this movie.  It may not be the finest movie Mr. Myers has done, but it does have a certain charm.

There’s sincerity in Mr. Myers performance that shines through, even through moments where the jokes fall flat.  It is that commitment to the character that gets him through this movie.  The occasional wink at the camera to let us in on the joke may have annoyed a few critics but I found it to be very Bugs Bunnyish.

First time director Marco Schnabel did a respectable job; I especially liked the dance sequence that were parodied Bollywood films.  The performance of Justin Timberlake as Roanoke’s rival Jacques Grandewas quite a surprise.  Timberlake was able to have fun with the role, imagine a cross between Pepe LePew and a Celine Dion superfan.  Also it would me remiss of me to not mention Verne Troyer as the Maple Leafs head coach.

After reading a few reviews of this movie I went into it with low expectations.  Maybe that was a good thing because I ended up enjoying it in the end.  I would like to think that The Love Guru is about a man that teaches people to love themselves but has a tough time loving himself.

The run time for this movie is about an hour and a half.  It’s rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content throughout, language, some comic violence and drug references.


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

Comments (0)

Hancock falls short.

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 2
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (2 votes, score: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 07 July 2008 by TheDude08

Hancock is down! Will Smith provides a sub-par effort in his his role as an unlikely superhero in Hancock. Accompanying stars Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman both fail to resuscitate this fairly terrible movie.

The story follows Hancock, a drunk and publicly hated superhero, uses his sheer “super” power to save the citizens, but also destroy millions of dollars worth of property. Jason Bateman stars as, Ray, a down-on-his luck PR(Public Relations) who attempts to reform Hancock’s image. Charlize Theron stars as Ray’s wife who is more reluctant to welcome Hancock into their home than he is. The story diverges into a ridiculous romance subplot, a wannabe criminal reminiscent of Buster (From Arrested Development), and a history of immortal gods. I will admit the chemistry between Bateman and Smith did provide a few laughs, and yet some of the jokes were simply recycled later on.

The cinematography showed various epic shots of the entire city as well as some decent panoramic action sequences. However, once again Will Smith, relies on CGI to do most of his acting for him a la I AM Legend and I, Robot. Other than that the directing seemed to be on par with a typical summer popcorn flick.

GO SEE IT IF YOU LIKE:

-Big action scenes all sequenced by CGI

-Will Smith overact (once again)

- Or just have an attraction to terrible cinema

I give it a D+


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

Comments (0)

SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (5 votes, score: 3.8 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 06 July 2008 by lisamarie

Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman

The Premise: Unlawfully sent to prison so the Judge (Rickman) can get his hands on his wife, Sweeney Todd (Depp) returns to discover his wife is dead and the Judge is keeping his daughter captive. He seeks revenge in the most delightfully blood-thirsty way, aided by the bonkers Mrs Lovett (Carter).

The Good: It’s long-since been established that Depp can play just about any character brilliantly. This film is no exception. He sings and slices his way through a dazzlingly dark performance, giving Sweeney a personality that’s both sinister and charismatic. But he’s upstaged every step of the way by Helena Bonham Carter’s portrayal of Mrs Lovett. She’s only supposed to be his sidekick—his enabler, if you will—but she steals the spotlight whenever she’s on screen. It would be an injustice to say she’s comic relief, but my god will she make you laugh. She makes you feel as if chopping up dead bodies and serving them in pies is the most hilarious thing in the world. As if to sugar-coat an already scrumptious main cast, there are some delightful supporting characters. Keep an eye out for Anthony Stewart Head’s cameo, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s performance is pure genius (naturally).

The Bad: The love story involving Depp’s daughter feels a bit rushed and forced—it could have done with a bit more non-singing screen time—and there are a few moments that are heavy on the cheese (try not to cringe when Sweeney sings his heart out about getting his blades back in his possession—it’s not the best number in the film).

Overall Verdict: Laden with Burton’s trademark gothic cinematography and bursting with talent from its illustrious cast, this film aims high and succeeds. Not to be missed!


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

Comments (1)

CAPTIVITY (18)

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 06 July 2008 by lisamarie

Director: Roland Joffè
Starring: Elisha Cuthbert

The Premise: This new offering from the Torture Porn genre is about a lonely Top Model who is drugged, kidnapped, and forced to endure her worst fears.

The Good: Joffè does a good job of creating tension and suspense. He gives a grainy, low-budget feel to the action that serves to build up the fear in both the viewer and the victim, Jennifer (Cuthbert). Sadly, that’s the only praise this appalling film deserves.

The Bad: Where’s the plot? No, seriously, where is it? Do the killers have a motive other than pure desire for the kill? It’s never really explained. The random, out-of-place flashback to the killers’ childhood does little more than add an extra layer of twisted evil to the story. It serves no purpose. And for a Torture Porn film, there’s surprisingly little torture endured by the victim. The killers are playing a game—that much is established—but there’s no explanation. There’s not much of anything, to be honest. The victim seems to spend more time sleeping than she does being scared. You spend the entire ninety minutes waiting for something truly horrific to happen—as you would expect from a film in this genre—and then come away angry that you’ll never get that time back.

Overall Verdict: Considering Joffè was once Oscar-worthy, this is a very poor offering indeed. If you like Torture Porn, re-watch the Saw franchise. Don’t waste your time on this.


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

Comments (1)

In Bruges

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 0.5
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (10 votes, score: 2.4 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 05 July 2008 by nwertanen99

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.

Comments (6)

The Strangers

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 05 July 2008 by Stacy Neuberger

This movie stars Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman.  It is an hour and twenty-five minutes long and is rated R mostly for intense violence and some language.

A newlywed couple try to have a nice romantic evening and are disrupted by a homicidal group of strangers.  The couple (Tyler and Speedman) have no clue why these people, one man and two women, have invaded their lives and are trying to hurt them.  The masked strangers toy with the couple, leading them to hide, seperate and to harm a close friend.  They destroy the couples lives and then they set out to destroy the couple.  Both Tyler and Speedman make attempts to foil the strange killers, but in the end their efforts seem futile as the strangers come closer and closer to causing them death.  Some will live and some will die, all because they “were home”.

Visually interesting this movies scenery sets the setting for the movie.  A lone house on a dusty road with no neighbors, the homocidal strangers found the perfect house to invade.  Trees and a creepy barn add to the scenery.  When the movie begins picking up steam and an earlier character returns the destruction becomes a little more obvious and adds even further to the creepy element this movie attempts to hold.  The acting by Liv Tyler is well done and a different jump for all those who loved her int he Lord of the Ring trilogy.  She is fearfull and scared in all the right places and complacent in the ones she needs to be complacent in.  Of course after saying all of these nice things I must now say what I really thought of the movie.

I thought this movie was pretty bad.  The premise is like one of a million other movies, killers killing because they can and because you are available.  This reminds me of a million other movies like The House of 1000 Corpses, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and even Friday the 13th.  They all have killers who kill randomly because the person they are killing was in the wrong place at the right time.  However most of those movies were interesting and the killers made sense, a homicidal family who kill for fun, a homicidal family who might have been brought on by insest and a killer who is ressureccted for no reason (yes even Jason is more interesting).  These killers aren’t evne that scary to me.  The “scary” scenes used too many startling scare tactics - people jumping out, people looking in windows, things making loud noises, it wasn’t scary.  In fact most of the scenes in the movie were obvious and you knew what scary thing was going to happen next. 

Boring and pointless this movie could be skipped.  No matter that the beautiful Liv Tyler is in this movie, it isn’t interesting enough to stay watching, even though it has some interesting scenes.  Not enough of a draw to watch the rest of the movie, it is too random and the viewer really doesn’t care what happens to the victims or the killers, especially since from the beginning of the movie you know what the end of the movie is going to be like. 

Don’t see it, and if you already have I am sure you suffer from the same watcher’s regret that I do, maybe we should start a support group.  Anyone who has seen this movie, or any of the following Dead Silence, I Know Who Killed Me, Sunshine, or The Happening to name a few.  Skip it, watch something better.


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

Comments (1)

Hancock

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 4
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (3 votes, score: 3.33 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 03 July 2008 by pippy

Will Smith still has it! Hancock stars Will Smith and Charlize Theron in an action film. This movie will fly you right up to the sky!

Will Smith stars as Hancock a superhero who needs an attitude adjustment and who needs to stop drinking. The town is tired of picking up the damages rather than having a superhero who does his duty properly. But this hero has a makeover when he saves a man who has a charming wife (Charlize Theron) who hides more than Hancock knows.

The camera was shaking in the beginning of the movie. The wife’s husband’s face was shaking when he was giving a presentation that made you go dizzy. The camera soon picked up when the action started happeneing.

The story had romance but it wasn’t a big deal. When Hancock falls for Ray’s wife, he finds that he would rather not hurt his friend. The wife however, knows more about Hancock than her own husband. I liked that they didn’t have an affair because it wouldn’t have been the way it ended.

Overall, this movie is a must see and Will Smith still has acting skills. Will and Charlize have a good throw down by the end of it all.


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

Comments (0)

“Wanted” left me wanting more.

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 1
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (3 votes, score: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 03 July 2008 by foxility

   I was lured to watch “Wanted” by the great cast starring James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, and Morgan Freeman.  It was directed by Russian director Timur Bekmambetov who is not well know in the states but the writers Michael Brandt and Derek Haas have a few films under their belt, one of the most recent ones which I happen to love, and not because I use to live there,“3:10 to Yuma.”

The beginning of the film reminded me of the movie “the office,” excluding the funny, in that  James McAvoy’s character, Wesley Gibson, is a cubicle guy who hates his job, hates his boss, and he finds out his girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend. He of course lets his days run one into the next seamlessly because he pities himself and doesn’t have the confidence to do anything about it.  As he goes into his habitual pharmacy for his anxiety pill refill he is forced to meet the woman who will change his life -Fox (Angelina Jolie).  She starts by telling him his father was one of the greatest assassins and the second greates assassin is right behind him so let the shootout begin.  Which by the way you can see this part in the preview, (if you haven’t already) in fact the preview gives away all the action scenes which I believe is the essence of the film. So, he finds out with the help of Sloan (Morgan Freeman) the “boss” that genetically he too is an assassin but not yet a great one cause they haven’t trained him, of course, and they need him to seek revenge on his father’s killer. The training begins and so does the typical montage so the audience can experience his transformation.  Finally, the last test arrives, curving the bullet, he has been struggling with this but if you watch the preview you know what happens.  He is ready! And he is given his targets, 2 to be exact which he pulls off neatly.  Now he is ready for the assassination of his life.  There’s suppose to be a twist at the end but I think most people figured it out.

“Wanted” gave me nothing at the end.  I felt disconnected with the characters because there wasn’t enough character build up.  The movie not only felt hastily put together but also like the ugly step sister to “Shoot ‘Em Up” in that the action was overly exaggerated but without the quality.  I recommend watching the preview since it gives away every action scene or if you’re looking for something that will last longer try “Shoot ‘Em Up.”


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

Comments (0)

My Blueberry Nights

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 1
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (8 votes, score: 2.13 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 03 July 2008 by nwertanen99

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.

Comments (0)

Gods and Generals (2003)

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 5
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (6 votes, score: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 03 July 2008 by nwertanen99

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.

Comments (0)

Hancock

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (2 votes, score: 4 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 02 July 2008 by candicedice

Starring Will Smith as Hancock, Jason Bateman as Ray Embrey,  and Mary Ray’s wife played by Charlise Theron.  Hancock is the story of a one of a kind superhero who leads a less than clean lifestyle know for saving the day in a destructive manner. Hancock goes to prison based on the recommendation of his PR representative Ray Embrey after the crime rate goes threw the roof Hancock is called to save the day and is now a new man. The minute Hancock gets out of prison he has to take care of a bank robbery where the audience meets the main bad guy of the movie. At this point the movie seems to be a classic superhero movie where the good guy has found the right path and has to defeat the bad guy, but in this story their is a slight twist Hancock isn’t the only one of his kind. This is when the movie turned slightly sour for me for Mary is connected to Hancock; at first the audience is lead to believe that the two are brother and sister which is plain ridiculous evan for a movie. Finally,  the audience learns that the two are former lovers. The audience also learns that when the two are near one another that they are more susceptible to injury.

One small theme that I notice that I thought was a nice choice to go with was the symbol of the bold eagle an American symbol this tied nicely with the name of the main character John Hancock. Another theme that become more annoying as the movie went on was the different ways people would try to provoke Hancock and Mary what no one can just chicken anymore. I was also surprised by the music most of the music was older some songs were only a few years old while others were as much as 20 including “Colors” by Ice Tea.

I enjoyed this film despite some ideas here and there the comic relief moments were great and what happens to the bad guy in the end was perfect. I would recommend seeing this movie, but I do not feel this film is appropriate for kids under 13 as the film is rated PG-13.


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

Comments (3)

The Happening

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (9 votes, score: 2 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 02 July 2008 by Stacy Neuberger

Mark Wahlburg and Zooey Deschanel star in this movie.  It is rated R for some self-inflicted violence and runs one hour and thirty-one minutes.

 Another movie by M. Night this movie tries to follow in the footsteps of his other movies, creating suspense and keeping the viewer wondering what will happen.  A young couple whose marriage has been on the rocks find themselves in the middle of a countrywide crisis.  They, along with a friend and his daughter, run to fins a safe haven.  Yet, there seems to be no escape as the mysterious ailment that causes people to kill themselves follows wherever they go.  Finally the couple (Wahlburg and Deschanel) find a place they think is safe and attempt to hide there, with a strange woman and a creepy doll.  The mysterious ailment follows them even there, and no human is safe from this “happening”.  In the end they take a chance and hope that when they go outside things don’t go too bad and maybe they can survive whatever is causing humans to kill themselves.

I have seen many mixed reviews of this movie, and it reminded me of the reviews of his past movies, which were of both versions, loved it and hated it.  While the landscape of this movie is nice and at times beautiful, the movie in itself is not really that good.  I feel like I wasted my money on it and want to ask M. Night to stop trying to live up to the fame of The Sixth Sense.  The actors were dry and seemed to be cardboard cutouts of themselves (as my friend said after we watched the movie).  The dialogue was dull and I found myself laughing through most of the movie because of how bored I was.  I needed to do something to keep myself awake.

As for the plot of the movie, it was so obvious that this was a movie about global warming and the problems that it could be causing.  I felt that watching this movie was like someone was constantly hitting me over the head with an organic environmentally safe hammer trying to give me a green concussion.  It couldn’t have been more obvious or more tree driven if it had been a movie of just a tree for an hour and a half.  In fact I might have liked that movie a lot more because then I would have known going in what I would be getting.  The actors could have been used so much better than they were, especially when you look at some of the other movies that Mark Wahlburg and Zooey Deschanel have done you know that their talents are not being used in this film, and they can do so much better.  The special effects were overdone, and the plot, well it left a lot to be deserved. 

If you want to watch a movie about going green and pollution and global warming go watch An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.  It was much more entertaining and less full of itself than this movie felt.  Skip it.  If you want something scary go get gas, the price you pay would be a lot scarier than this movie ends up being.


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

Comments (4)

National Lampoon’s Van Wilder (2002)

Reviewer's Rating: This entry has a rating of 3.5
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (5 votes, score: 2.2 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 02 July 2008 by candicedice

In this fun goofy comedy Ryan Reynold’s character Van Wilder is the big man on campus who is putting off graduating college after being there for seven years. Wilder’s dad decides that he’s no longer going to pay for his son’s tuition. The school’s newspaper decides to write a human interest piece on Wilder when he realizes that he needs to graduate and start the next chapter in his life after a party goes aerie. This film is 90 minutes of fun jokes and crazy hijinks, it’s not the kind of movie that makes you think, but the kind that lets you escape from life if only for a little bit or to remind you of the crazy time that is college.

I enjoyed this movie and it definitely launched the career of Ryan Reynold’s the film also stars Tara Reid as a newspaper writer, Kal Penn (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle) as the assistant, and Teck Holmes(Real World) and Wilder’s roommate/ best friend.

The best part about this film is that the view sees that Wilder isn’t your typical parting big man on campus, but that he feels that everyone no matter what they look like or where they came from should have a good time and one of the best lines from the movie is “You shouldn’t take life too seriously” this is a true statement that our society has forgotten.


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

Comments (0)

The Incredible Hulk

Reviewer's Rating: N/A
Rate This Movie: (Time Waster!)(It Sucks)(So... So...)(Watch This!)(Get the DVD!) (7 votes, score: 4.43 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Posted on 02 July 2008 by candicedice

The Incredible Hulk starring Edward Norton is fun thrill ride with great special effect, a great story, and even better cameos.

The Incredible Hulk is a story about a man working for the U.S. Military who gets injected with an experimental drug that cause him to grow at an incredible rate when he gets angry oh ya and he turns green. Eric Banner(Norton) is on the run trying to control his anger and life a new life in Brazil when the military find him and he begins to run again. He finally ends up in America (Virginia I believe) where he finds his ex-girlfriend Betty (Liv Tyler) and continues to run. His main goal is to get rid of this power so he can live a normal life. The problem is that Betty’s father wants to kidnap him and use his power as a weapon for the U.S. Gen. Ross (William Hurt) hires Emil Blonsky a decorated military veteran to get the job done. Eventually Blonsky gets the same injection and become a nasty monster himself the two then meet in New York City(Harlem) and the battle begins. The Hulk triumph and is on the run only it appears that Banner can control the power of the Hulk.

This film is fun exciting and extremely entertain and is great for the whole family. This film is just a kick in the pants ride leaving you wanting more. When the idea was first presented I was very hesitant to go see the film based on the 05′ disaster, but this film delivered oh and you’re just going to have to go see the film to see the great cameo in the film.


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

Comments (1)

Stay Updated

    Would you like to receive the latest movie review in your inbox? Simply put your name and email below to be on our announcement list!
    Name:
    Email:


Search Movie Review

    Enter a movie title (partial title OK), actor/actress, director, or anything else you are looking for in the box below:


Top Movie Critics (Past 30 Days)



CATEGORIES

RELATED SITES

INFORMATION

RSS Feed rss feed