superduperspit Reviews

About Time (I) (2013)

Why this film is a masterpiece

[10/10 · 30 November 2013]

One of the exhilarating feels as a film fan, is knowing when you've seen a modern classic. A film that breaks a threshold to the next level. About Time is one of those films.

What makes the film great is this. With the history of time travel films, I expected things to go "wrong" for Tim halfway through the film. Where time travelling would change his future and this abuse of power would cost him his life with Mary, leading him to change the past more and change it back. At a certain point of the film after changing the past for his sister, I was convinced he'd walk in the door to find himself married to his blond "first love" Charlotte in oh-no fashion. But this never happens. The effect of time travel never spins out of control for Tim and in fact much of his life proceeds as if he hardly needed it. Time travel helps Tim fall in love with Mary, but he met her originally and set up a date without it. Marriage, the birth of children and death proceeds as they would have. His sister's life falls apart and her brother helps puts her back together with persuasion and not time travel. Tim's professional life appears to be perfectly normal and unaffected by his powers.

So what's Richard Curtis doing? Why make a time travel film to tell a story that could survive without it and where it never enacts a price on its user? Because this is the point. The great parts of Tim's life - falling in love, children, family and enjoying day to day, aren't because of his time travel. He succeeds by using his powers to live an ordinary life and the great parts that come with it. By the end he doesn't even use it anymore. Tim's journey, real life and the people in it is what makes it extraordinary, not travelling in time.

The title of the film "About Time" is perfect. Before seeing the film it sounds as if that's referring to time travel, but in reality it's about the passage of time. From the start of Tim's journey to the end. It's really About Life. Tim's life and journey and the humanity of it represents all of ours. Like much great fantasy films or television, it uses a fantastical concept to show us real things about ourselves.

As if this wasn't enough, About Time is a superbly made film. With this and Love, Actually (I haven't seen Pirate Radio) Richard Curtis proves he is as talented a director as writer. The film is beautifully shot, both filming its characters and its setting to great effect. The dialogue and performances are exceptional and on point, making incredibly lovable characters. It exudes warmth. "About Time" is a film is a terrifically crafted and directed film in a way less likely to get credit compared to a "Gravity" or "12 Years A Slave". The 32% of critics on rottentomatoes.com that graded this a sub-par film, frankly have lost the plot of how to judge filmmaking. They are simply wrong.

"About Time" is a near perfect film for its genre, following in the footsteps of Love, Actually 10 years ago. It's a modern classic and one of the best films of the last 5 or 10 years.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

Surprisingly fun and energetic, well made

[8/10 · 14 September 2013]

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones feels destined to be a minor young adult-fiction adaptation, so much that it feels like a 2 hour CW pilot more than a film.

But that's OK. Because it'd be a great pilot, worthy of being called a Joss Whedon cousin.

City of Bones has a lot of personality and life. It provides enough humor to let the audience know, it knows the movie is supposed to be fun. Moreso, the action scenes have personality, are clean and move with purpose. The action tells a visual story instead of hammering the audience over the head sensually.

Despite all the plot devices, it still feels a character film. The love triangle is more important than the learning to be a hero plot. Which is just fine. Clary, Jace and Simon are likable and have emotions and heart. I was sold on the love triangle.

Mortal of Instruments: City of Bones is great filmmaking by Harald Zwart. He balances the action and character building moments well, making a fun, fast moving film with a heart. Simplicity is City of Bones' friend. Directors of bigger blockbusters could learn from a film like City of Bones, in how clean and fun its action scenes are and how they serve to support its characters' story, rather than overwhelm it.

Hopefully City of Ashes is on the way, despite the first film's box-office performance. I'd like to revisit these characters. Perhaps it's not too late for the CW to make a television series out of this, otherwise.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)

Totally awesome!

[10/10 · 31 March 2013]

Don't listen to the critics or groupthink downplaying this movie. G.I. Joe: Retaliation is one of the best action blockbusters in years.

John M. Chu does an outstanding job directing the action sequences. What a relief to see clean action scenes where everything is in clean sight. No more shaky-cam BS please, Hollywood. Give me G.I. Joe: Retaliation like action scenes any day over it. The swinging lines scene is just amazing! What really makes this film, is it's overflowing with energy. Not only in the action, but the actors. From the Rock leading the way to supporting characters like Jonathan Pryce, Walton Goggins, Ray Stevenson, and Bruce Willis in his cameo, GI J:R understands humor, swag and wit is essential to a film like this. Pryce's humor especially KILLS as Zartan/the president. When the first line out of Cobra Commander's mouth was "You're out of the band, Destro", I knew this sequel would have self-aware wit and sharpness the original lacked.

At the same time, despite a film that embraces ridiculousness and absurdity - its lead characters still have self-seriousness. This actually makes the film better, by giving just enough believability and stakes to their actions and the plot. We want the villains to be goofy but the leads to be intense and serious.

The plot is proudly big and ridiculous, highlighted by the terrific scene with Pryce and the world leaders, North Korea and Global Warming jokes included. It embraces the villains' hilariously unoriginal nuclear domination plan, Zartan all but puts his pinky to his mouth and cackles.

GI Joe: Retaliation knows what it is and knows how to bring the energy in action and humor in spades. John M. Chu's stellar direction and the stellar charismatic cast, creates magic together. This is how you make an action blockbuster! It's one of the best pure action films of the last few years.

Life of Pi (2012)

An all time great film

[10/10 · 28 January 2013]

2012 is a great film year. Almost all the films I looked forward to delivered. However one stood above them all and that's Life of Pi. I believe this is not only the best film of 2012 but one of the best films I've seen in my life.

What makes Pi great is the different way it works. On the surface, if just taking the story for what it is, it's a great film in many ways. It has a likable lead and story and manages to make a boy floating on a raft entertaining. I can't say enough about how well crafted the confrontations between Pi and Parker are. Ang Lee uses the boat as a perfect device for their head to head "battles".

But of course, Life of Pi is more than just a great story. It is steeped with symbolism. The genius ending by Yann Martel of course gives the entire film a new face. Which Pi story was real? Of course the answer is that neither are meant to be truly real. What's important is what someone takes out of a story and what it means to them. As a film viewer this is applicable to us, listening to Pi's story or another movie's, we can interpret it whichever way we want - by whichever fits our personal code. In the early stages of the film much is made of Pi's personal beliefs (in many different religions) compared to the characters around him. His father believes in science, his mother more the heart. A man even believes in swimming pools as his salvation. This is all important because just as Pi is willing to believe in multiple religions and pick the important parts from each, one interprets Pi's story in their own way and in turn, their own life in their own way

But more than just that, to me all of Life of Pi is symbolic of life. We are all boys on a raft in the ocean, braving the coming and going storms and searching for our destination. It bears mentioning that brilliantly, Pi is not going home. He's going to a foreign, new place. Just as in the journey to life, we do not go to the past, we go to an uncertain future.

Regardless of whether Pi's story was real or not, what seems obvious is that Richard Parker is meant to represent Pi's internal psychi. Hearkening back to the argument about science vs the heart, Pi is the rational member on the boat and Parker is the ferocious, emotional one. One can read Pi's journey as his rationality fighting with his emotional self. Likewise one could argue the other animals on the boat if not real, represent parts of himself. The zebra perhaps is the side of him that wanted to feel like a victim after the crash, the hyena the side that wanted to flip out and get angry and the orangutan the one that thought his parents had a chance to be alive. Quickly his victim side and his family-loving side is engulfed by anger, which then recedes.

One tell that the entire journey is a symbolism of life is the carnivorous island. This is an island that most people visit. The carnivorous island is when we get to a place that's so comfortable and secure, that we threaten to let ourselves get stuck there, instead of moving onto new and unknown adventures in our life. Pi has to choose whether to stay in this place and be eaten by this security of life, or to move on and he chooses to move one.

The part that fascinates me the most about this story is the decision to make Parker leave, without turning back to Pi. If one accepts Parker is a representation of Pi's emotional internal self, what does his snub mean? Did Pi lose his heart and emotional self in that journey across the ocean? Did leaving the the security of the island (where he'd have been with Parker forever) require sacrificing that part of himself? Or is it that in the real world, the emotional self cannot roam free with the rational, controlled self. Just as Parker had to be caged up before they got on the ship. It took that journey on the ocean for Pi to come in touch with his animalistic self, but they could never be together in civilization and this is what breaks Pi's heart as he's telling the story.

Ang Lee is simply masterful. Aside from the crafting of scenes on the ship as I mentioned, the editing is perfect. Think about the scenes like Parker eating the goat in the cage, or the animals on the boat. Every scene transition is simply perfect. Every cut to Pi telling the story is crafted perfectly. This is a film where a master is truly in control of his medium. Of course I didn't even mention the all time great visual effects Life of Pi is not only perfectly crafted and written, but it is layered with fascinating depth and psychology as a movie about life itself, choices and the meaning we take out of our lives. This is a true film masterpiece and work of art.

Amour (2012)

Terrible. One of the worst films I've seen this year.

[1/10 · 19 January 2013]

You've heard the hype about Amour right now. Not only one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year, but a foreign film that gets a Best Picture and Best Director film has to be great, right? Not so fast. This film to me is a colossal failure and misstep. Let's start with the most obvious reason. The film is called Amour, translated to Love in English. As a film about a man holding onto his mentally and physically fading wife, one should expect a lot of love shared from him. But the opposite is true. Amour is a totally emotionally detached and COLD film. In fact part of me wonders if Haneke intended for his title to be ironic, by making his characters NOT have much love between them, as emotionally disconnected souls. Certainly their weak relationship with their daughter would fit into this theme. Regardless though, the two principle characters being cold and clinical made this a very unenjoyable watch to me. I did not like these people very much and I did not feel a strong relationship between them. Obviously in a film with this plot, a strong emotional relationship between its characters would seem critical and this film misses in that area.

But as a whole, my main problem with Amour is how clinical it feels. I always felt the presence of Michael Haneke in this film and I don't mean that in a good way. I always felt like I was watching the film being directed and filmed. The dialog felt rather forced and unorganic to me as well, a major problem in a film that aspires to realism. To give an example of a microcosm of the film's problems, a few times in the film the Jean-Louis Trintignant character George has a pigeon fly into the apartment. The first time he chases it away, but when it comes back after his wife had died, he catches in a blanket and embraces it. Get it - the pigeon represents George embracing his wife's and his future death, first he doesn't want to accept it, then he embraces it! If this sounds forced and eye roll worthy to you, it's because it is. Now the pigeon scene doesn't hurt the film that much, in fact it's kind of fun to see JLT chasing it around, but the entire film is made with the mindset of that film. Haneke calculating his cinematography and dialog to try and force his 'relationship' between the leads on you and his messages about embracing death. Despite great performances by Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, it never gets past the less than natural way Haneke films this But as a whole, my biggest gripe with the film comes down this: IT IS BORING. IT IS VERY VERY BORING. In part because of the lack of emotional resonance I suppose, I did not feel involved with the story much. I'll even admit that as someone who watched it on a screener on my laptop, at times during the film I was surfing websites online just to make the film go by faster. That's the sign that the movie failed. Amour could've been a great film but in the end it's a calculated, on the nose bore that I have no interest in ever seeing again.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

I can't believe how bad this movie is

[1/10 · 6 January 2013]

After watching Zero Dark Thirty I am simply amazed at the critical reception it's received. In fact it's one of the most bizarre and puzzling critical reactions I've seen since more than 60% of critics liked Spiderman III on rottentomatoes To me this is simply not a good film. In fact I wouldn't even be as kind to call it merely OK or middling. I believe it's flat out bad.

Zero Dark Thirty is the type of film that needs exceptional editing and writing to work. This is because it's about a long drawn out process mainly done by people sitting at desks. The film I imagined, if as good as its reviews, would have cracking dialog, sharp plotting, quick editing The problem with the film is that it's writing and editing is quite poor. The dialogs in this film simply do not work and undermine talented actors/actresses. The characters talked to each other at a TV movie level of depth and linguistic expression. Many scenes, including some like the infamous F bomb laden ones simply do not feel believable as happening in a professional CIA setting. Many of the arguments feel stagey and "we need you to act emotional here" outburst-y, as mentioned like they'd do in a TV movie. I suspect the screenwriter wanted to make the people feel "real" and down to earth, except it does just the opposite. The dialog makes the characters feel contrived, as if trying too hard to feel real.

SPOILER - The other problem with the script is that while I do not know the details of what really happened vs what Bigelow and co. fictionalized, many parts of the manhunt felt ridiculous. eg. There is a scene where a terrorist spills all his guts information wise just because Chastain tricked him into thinking he told him all of that the night before and had memory loss. Would he really just give up and say everything like that? There's an entirely predictable explosion/death scene prompted by a smiley CIA agent going "oh just let him into the base, we don't want to spook him by scaring him" which was ridiculously naive by a trained professional. The CIA are shown a video of a detainee saying "X character is dead, I buried him, btw here's a picture" and they all just believe it as fact without questioning whether he'd be lieing. The entire plot hinges on catching a courier who they seem to find because of a long lost picture, and some other details I didn't really catch - either way the way they caught him was very confusing and not drawn out well plotting wise. The manhunt did not come off as very complex, intelligent or plotted well to me. It felt like the characters just sat around for a decade and waited for clues to fall in their lap!

Then there's the editing. This is a long, sloppily put together film. Many of the scenes feel unnecessary. There are long, forgetting scenes of people talking. For a large portion of the film I could hardly stand to watch the dull back and forths while keeping my eyes open.

Many people have pointed out the lack of character development. This is true but I also blame the dialog most of all. Chastain is a blank terrorist catching robot and simply does not feel like a real person to me. None of them do really. This makes it harder to cheer for them. They come off as terrorist catching line delivery devices, not real people with emotions.

Zero Dark Thirty came off to me as a misfire on almost every level. It's poorly written, edited, it fails to make its characters or plot interesting. Zero Dark Thirty tries so hard to be "realistic" and "naturalistic" that it forgets it's a film. But not only does it go in that docu-drama wannabe direction but it does a very poor job of feeling realistic due to its stagey characters and dialog and clearly contrived plotting and set-ups. It neither has its cake or eats it.

This is simply a colossal misfire after the near masterpiece that is the Hurt Locker for Bigelow. I am truly shocked at how poor a film this is on every level after the critical reception to it. One of the very worst films I've seen all year

Snow Angels (I) (2007)

A masterpiece, much deeper than it is being given credit for

[10/10 · 8 October 2008]

Snow Angels is a film that one release, has been relatively accepted as a competent, straight forward depressing drama. I believe, however, that the themes of this film reach far deeper than that of a typical depressing drama.

Originally, I had read an interpretation of the film praising the contrast between Arthur and Lily's relationship, representing perfect bliss and happiness and hope, and Glen and Annie's relationship of blackness and destruction. However after looking deeper into the film, I believe Snow Angel uses not two relationships to portray its themes, not three, but four: Arthur and Lily, Barb and Nate, Don and Louise Parkinson (Arthur's parents), and finally, Glen and Annie. What's brilliant about this movie is how each one represents a step in the process of a relationship from perfect beginning to total black ending, and how each step bleeds into the next chronologically, going from perfection, to the shattering of this perfection, to the fall in its course, to destruction and death.

Arthur and Lily are the first step, through them we see a relationship's beginning, or really, its birth. We see the first meeting and eyeing, their courting, their first kiss, their first sex... the relationship is born and blossoms and we leave them in perfect happiness. Arthur and Lily are in fact, perfect beings, completely untainted and incapable of wrong.

The line then jumps to Barb and Nate. They represent, simply, the incident that causes the rift or breakup in the couple, the shattering of perfection, the beginning of the fall. While the jump in terms of age and status is big from Arthur and Lily to Barb and Nate, in this case age doesn't matter... the symbolism of going from happiness and stability, to getting hit with the "rift moment", is the same. Barb and Nate get the least screen time and development in this film but their place is essential to this progressive arc.

Continuing where they left off, Don and Louise Parkinson, Arthur's parents, show the results of the incident and separation. They're formally separated, as opposed to Nate being just kicked out of the house. Another difference is that Nate in the film is still a half goofy character (leopard underwear was there for a reason), and is very calm when confronting Glen. Meanwhile Don is seemingly more sombre, he has an air of creepy offness, not yet developed. Don and Louise are obviously on the edge, but with Don's mixtape at the end, we leave them in a moment of most importantly, hope, a dominant theme in the film... Their fate is still ambiguous, they can turn this thing around. Or they can't...

The last step is obviously Glen and Annie, who show what happens when you don't turn it around, when you lose all hope hit total destruction and blackness. They of course, end up falling deeper and deeper into darkness until absolute tragedy, and death.

What's even more brilliant about this is that it ties overall into the basic from comedy to tragedy meter. The basic classification of all stories, is you begin at the top, with comedies, where you have a happy ending and innocent, perfect beings, but as you go further and further down the drop, almost like a fall into a hole, you get more flawed, complex beings who do more and more morally wrong things, until of course you hit the bottom, complete tragedy, and destruction of the human soul completely. These stages are, in essence, symbolized and brought out in Snow Angels. You could also tie the film into our loss of innocence from childhood into less and less joy and more and more frailty as adults, until we finally reach death. I'm no Catholocism expert but I'm guessing you could tie that in there somewhere too... the heaven and hell thing or whatever, or just birth - life - death.

Oh, and has it been mentioned this movie is amazingly acted, shot, and edited? I'd heard the Beckinsale can actually act chatter, but ho.ly. cow... she jumped from Scarlett Johannson level to give her an Oscar level in like one film. Rockwell matches her, just brilliant. With the heavy melodrama these two are asked to pull off, it'd be VERY easy for most actors to slip into overacted and falsehood, but they pull it off immensely. Angarano, Thirlby, stars of the future. Arnette, Dunne, Katt, Sedaris, all great.

Do not miss this film, it's one of the finest of the year

Review written for worldofkj.com/forum

Lakeview Terrace (2008)

A wonderfully layered character piece, and misunderstood tragedy

[8/10 · 7 October 2008]

Lakeview Terrace's plot and set-up is rather simple. A newly married interracial couple (Patrick Wilson, Kerry Washington) are new homeowners in the Southern Californian suburbs, living next to a cop (Samuel L. Jackson) who can't stop terrorizing them. Therefore, it's almost ironic that for a set-up that would normally lead to a straight forward good and bad thriller, we get a film deliberately complex and shaded with grey.

What makes Lakeview Terrace work is the respect director Neil LaBute gives his three main characters. All three are equally complex and refreshingly flawed human beings who are often guilty of selfishness and mistakes, and all three actors marvel with their internally conflicted roles.

Under a lesser skilled hand, Jackson's Abel would've fallen into the trap of becoming a caricature, a one-noted racist terror living next door. But under LaBute, Abel is painted as a layered, disturbed being on a downward spiral, releasing his anger at his own deteriorating life on the people close to him. Abel realizes when he's done wrongs, but his irrational actions get the best of him until one of his impulsive mistakes has drastic consequences and leads to a finale of blown up violence. This shift in the final 20 minutes would normally seem out of place, but in the context of Abel's spiral and deterioration, it completes Abel's tragedy perfectly. What adds to the finale is that all the characters' actions are plausible and exactly how you could expect them to act in that situation. Furthermore, all of Chris, Lisa, and Abel's selfish and wrong decisions culminate and play a part in the finale, every scene in the film up to that point becomes important. Considering this deliberate structure and the fact that most of the film's running time consists of the three characters talking among one another, Lakeview Terrace could've worked as an excellent stage play.

Meanwhile, on the surface Chris and Lisa would appear to be without flaws and perfectly dedicated to each other as most leads of the type in films are, but the film, by putting them under the microscope throughout the film, as well as showing the human sides of Abel, reveals this is untrue. In many cases, they commit the same wrongs and selfishness that Abel does, and by the end the only difference between the two is that Abel followed through with the final wrong action, while Chris wanted to but stopped himself. As well, between Chris and Lisa exists many clues of selfishness when dealing with one another. One sign of the skill of a director is little moments, and there are many clues throughout the film that all is not well with the couple. Pay attention to Lisa's off-screen voice during the final scene of the film, it's a masterfully placed and telling moment.

The film and script is wise enough to never venture into clichés or conventions, even when dealing with pregnancy revelations or Abel striking his daughter. Similarly, it avoids over-exposition and overly heavy racial messaging. Although LaBute does bring up the idea of racial double standards a number of times and plays with our assumptions concerning race, the crux of the film smartly lies in the internal conflict of the three leads, not being hit over the head with racial subtext is a relief.

LaBute's camera isn't flashy, but rather composed and tight, fitting the nature of the film well. But more or less, his strengths lie in his plotting and work with the actors, and staging the constant dialogs with composed skill.

Lakeview Terrace is unfortunately a film that will probably slip under the radar in terms of releases this year, and in the future it may be only known as a footnote on Samuel L. Jackson's resume, but it nevertheless deserves credit for what it is, an excellent, tight, and near masterful suburbia drama that works as both an examination of our human shades of grey and as a great tragedy. Neil LaBute, I anxiously await your next project.

Review written for Worldofkj.com

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008)

A great throwback to when teen films let its characters just feel natural and real ... Juno, eat your heart out!

[8/10 · 7 October 2008]

The teen romance genre is no stranger to formula. Often, the sequence of events will go: Audience meets boy, audience meets girl, boy and girl meet each other, and before you know it the sparks are flying and they're on the collision course of love. A thousand times this story has been told, in every genre, not just teen romance, and yet there's something innocent and magical about it in its simplicity it that keeps us coming back.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist does not stray from the tried and tested plot arcs of its predecessors, but while the plot is expectedly familiar for the teen romance genre, what makes Nick and Norah stand out is how natural and real its characters feel. In a sense, Nick and Norah is a complete antidote to Cera's last film, Juno. As much as that film went overboard with attempts at wit and unrealistically setting up the characters for snark and pop culture humor, Nick and Norah plays the dialog and interaction completely genuine and real, director Peter Sollett simply lets his characters breathe and be the regular, real teenagers and human beings they are. The humor in the film comes from not forced wit and jokes, but only the natural conversation and glances that comes with youth and early romance, essentially what you'd find yourself laughing at in real life. Nick and Norah is probably the closest any film has gotten since Dazed and Confused to replicating the social teen dialog and conversational atmosphere.

Cera and Dennings, although both limited actors, bring natural charm and energy to their roles, an despite the romance arc being intentionally predictable from the beginning, manage to create a level of believability and sweetness to their courtship through the night. By the end of the film when they do cultivate their romance, it's hard not to find yourself happy that they did. The real star of the film comedically however, is Ari Graynor as Caroline, almost pitch perfectly playing the puking drunk girl we all knew and loved from our high school past. Never slipping into total absurdity or farce, Graynor's lost and drunk encounters throughout the night, including a certain piece of gum, an encounter at a train station, and of course, the toilet, provide the biggest laughs of the film.

Peter Sollett shoots the film in a fairly low-budget, natural way, which benefits the naturalistic feel of the acting and dialog. For the most part however, his contribution lies in the interaction with the actors over attempting anything artistically behind the camera. The film doesn't truly get going until 20 minutes in, as Nick and Norah aren't as interesting without each other, and Caroline isn't as interesting when she isn't drunk. However, as soon as the two title characters begin riding in Nick's Yuma and the script begins to unfurl the pitch perfect nervous conversational techniques between the two, the film takes off.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is a film where the storyline may not be new and the end is foreseeable from miles away, but nevertheless, like a fairy tale you've heard many times before, you can't help but enjoy yourself along the way once again. As a nice throwback to teen romances like Say Anything or Sixteen Candles when the characters were allowed to feel real and as they are, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is a great and charming addition to the genre.

Review written for Worldofkj.com

Safe (1995)

A gripping near-masterpiece by Todd Haynes about realization and awakening from society's "safe" lines

[10/10 · 13 August 2008]

In 1995's Safe, Todd Haynes creates a world that is so completely mundane, vapid, that it both literally and figuratively suffocates its main character, Claire. This world? Suburbia.

On the surface, Safe is centered around Claire battling a mysterious "environmental sickness" and the emotional breakdown it wrecks on her soul. But past that, Claire's arc and sickness symbolizes realization and awakening. Claire's dialog is rare, but when she does speak, she often envisions people "waking up" to the toxicity of the world, much as her disease allowed her to wake out of her existence as a meaningless drone of a housewife. When she checks into a rehab for her illness in the last act of the film and hopes to find answers and companionship, she only encounters more exploitation and wrong, and her condition worsens. The more she feels "awake" in relation to the sheepish mentality and falseness in the world around her, the sicker she gets, and the more in condition she separates from the regular, blind humans. In one of the film's most defining sequences, Claire sees a man wandering across the grazed land outside her rehab cabin. He is the most separated from regular human societal conditions and borders, and thus looks like a walking mummy, beautifully inhuman, stoic, and removed from any other being. He is removed from the blind, "safe" world, Claire's original world.

Julianne Moore's performance still stands as among the best in her career, and Claire's gradual mental breakdown is among the most intricately and internally well-acted in cinema lore. Haynes is wise to keep everything about Claire subtle and closed in; a lesser filmmaker would've felt the need for "big" crying scenes, but Claire's inner turmoil is portrayed so effectively in Moore's quietness that it creates a completely human character in a world that is not. The film benefits from not feeling the need for over-exposition in either the plot or its messages, Haynes lets the audience put together and interpret the film themselves. In particular the film wisely leaves whether Claire's illness is real or simply mental as ambiguous, but it doesn't matter, the end result of Claire's world making her sick and being forced to awaken from it is the same.

The film is shot beautifully, Haynes as usual has perfect framing in his shots, capturing the slow drawling movement of Claire through her house, driving, or being choked in the rest of her world. Like many great filmmakers he reaches the most effect through images over dialog (which is intentionally useless in most of the film anyway), and again his decisions concerning Claire as a completely internal character and general withholding of exposition, are very wise.

Ironically enough considering the title, Safe is one of the more difficult and daring films I've seen recently, as Claire's bland world is as intoxicating for the viewer as it is for her. But at the very least, the film stands as an extremely ambitious and interesting film, if not near-masterpiece, that certifies Todd Haynes as one of the great present-day directors.

Beowulf (2007)

Beowulf is a good fantasy film, although not memorable

[7/10 · 21 November 2007]

It is unsurprising that the the most impressive feature of the Beowulf are the visuals. Ushering in 3-D technology to the masses, Beowulf's entire marketing campaign has been based off the 3-D gimmick and Robert Zemeckis' motion-capture technology. However despite relying on its gimmick, Beowulf is a solid fantasy film that knows where it stands and knows what to give to its audience.

Zemeckis is confident enough in his motion-capture technology that he "films" Beowulf much like he would any other. The characters are shot with specific ideas to greater effect, such as with Grendel's mother. Her full appearance isn't revealed until halfway through the film, and up to that point we only get reflections of her skin in the water and shots of her "hands" as she cradles her son. Although the revelation of her appearance has been long spoiled in the ads, it is an effective use of suspense over what the creature may be. Zemeckis even goes far enough in the film to include nearly unnoticeable touches like silent facial expressions and reactions on his characters. Like real acting, faces in a good film can tell the story without saying words. As a result many of the conversations and scenes between characters feel as real as a live-action film.

One of those performances is Ray Winstone's, who provides a very steady leading man as Beowulf himself. An interesting aspect of the film is how it plays with the idea of a hero. It begins with Winstone as the most cliché of great warriors, a man with many speeches and war stories. Over time as he becomes an old man however, all of his glory is stripped away. While the entire world sees him as that great hero, he himself knows now he is not. The film does its best to turn the folklore hero notion inside out. Beowulf's arc is also at times is surprisingly tender, something I didn't expect in such a blockbuster. It's also straight out of Shakespeare or folk myths, though that's not surprising considering the source poem dates back to 11th century Old English.

The most fun character in the film is Grendel. Creepy, disgusting, and insane, he's a killing machine and provides a jolt from the beginning. Grendel's first scene is as frightening and shocking as any moment in the horror genre this year. Grendel's mother(all right, played by Angelina Jolie) is also a strong villain as an equal and probable superior to the great Beowulf. It's clear the biggest portion of the budget went into Jolie's transformation, but it is a success as her signature look is properly captured.

Beowulf is not perfect, some of heroic feats come off a bit silly and and occasionally the dialog is hammy. Robin Wright-Penn as the Queen also doesn't add much to the film, it seems like Zemeckis was considering a feminist statement with the way her character is poorly treated early on, but he doesn't go anywhere with it. Finally, although Zemeckis' visuals are overall extremely impressive, the setting and background sights of the kingdom leave something to be desired. I wished the film spent a little more time outside the drinking hall.

What Beowulf succeeds most in doing, is entertaining the audience. The storyline is fast-paced and engaging, and the battle scenes are pure fun. I can't ask for more. But don't ask me to remember this film in a couple years.

American Gangster (2007)

A cops and gangsters classic!

[10/10 · 26 October 2007]

Starting off, this probably shouldn't be grouped in as a mob film. For one, Crowe's character is as much the lead as Denzel, this is a cops catching the criminal movie. But also, there's not much mob, it's Frank Lucas at the top and everyone else trying to attach to him, he's one man and that is made very clear.

American Gangster works on numerous levels. It's in part a portrait of late 60s-early 70s Harlem and America, full of drugs and desperation and weakness, where the strong rise above the rest and the cops are dirtier than the rats. As a crime thriller it's entertaining and at 2 hours 37 minutes, never loses interest. But, maybe most surprisingly, it's also a superb character drama and study. Literally every character who steps on screen is compelling, has depth to them, has their motivations, and is tossed into conflict. For example there's a scene early on where Crowe's character Richie and his partner are searching a parked car and find a very large amount of unmarked money in the trunk. Without giving away more, it and the following scenes lead to some surprising moral and character statements by Scott. Richie's morals vs everyone else the temptation of the streets is commonly laid on him throughout the film, and thanks to Crowe's great great performance, it adds a lot to the movie.

Denzel is brilliant here. Frank Lucas, with his collected yet fiery, always powerfully menacing performance is one of the better king bosses I can think of in recent memory. When he's not talking, just the way his face is set, he totally totally gets in this character. The academy would do right to easily give him a nomination this year. I also wanted to add that while the two leads don't get on screen till the last 20 minutes, they have a long extended scene that is pure dynamite and gold. They play off each other perfectly and it's well worth the build-up, and maybe are among the highlights of each performance.

Going through supporting actors, Josh Brolin gives one of the year's most surprising performances as an insufferable and despicable dirty cop. He's so slimy, money-grubbing, and yet intelligent and an equal, he's just cunning. Cuba Gooding, Jr. is decent in his one scene, though it's hampered by being mostly unneeded. Chiwetal Ejifor makes a believable side character though he's not given as much to do, and finally I think Ruby Dee could be a sleeper Best Supporting Actress contender for her role as Mama Lucas. Every other short and thankless role I didn't mention is acted superbly here as well, it's a sign of a great director that they're all so on their game.

Ridley Scott's direction, brilliant, what can you say. He creates New York and the rats living in it to the point with fantastic attention to detail, and most of the scenes in the film are shot and constructed simply perfectly. This includes the short but brutally effective opening scene, which stands as one of the more memorable openings I've seen in a while. Actually any time there's gunplay or action, even if there isn't that much overall, it's stunning. Particularly, at the end there's a police raid scene that stands as the "holyyyy crap" sequence of the film. Going from a hallway to a heroine preparing apartment, and without revealing anything more, it's incredible, simply incredible. Remember when people were going nuts over the tracking shot gimmick in Children of Men? I felt that way about this one. If there's a god, Ridley will finally pick up his directing Oscar this year, he deserves it for this and his wide career.

American Gangster is probably one of the best cop-based films I've seen, and up there with gangster ones. It does one of the best jobs of examining the rise and fall of a crime or drug boss right from the beginning, and dives right into on the other side what it means to be a cop and to strive for something, as well as just telling an awesome and magnificently directed gangster story.

One of the year's very finest films.

Smokin' Aces (2006)

A fast-paced, exhilarating thriller!

[8/10 · 17 January 2007]

At first glance the idea of a director Joe Carnahan helming a movie like Smokin Ace's seems a bit odd considering his previous effort, the low budget gritty NARC which delved into the less glamorous ends of crime cinema. Ace's trailer suggested something in the area of a Guy Richie or Quentin Tarantino movie injected with Speed, not something like NARC. Was this assignment the wrong one for the relatively new director to handle? The plot itself is standard movie mob. Buddy 'Aces' Israel is a big time Las Vegas performer who's got in to deep on the wrong side of the law and has decided to save his own skin by ratting out big time members of the West Coast Cosa Nostra. Needless to say this doesn't sit well with the individuals on the chopping block who put out a big contract on Israel's head. Cue a band of assassin's, FBI agents and bloody action as everyone moves for the prize who's ensconced in a hotel penthouse.

A lot of Carnahan's touches from NARC do worm there way into the proceeding's his habit of close camera-work on characters faces and certain scenes doused on a washed out veneer but plenty more is from the Tarantino/Ritchie playbook. Frenetic cuts and camera-work litter large parts of the proceedings, everyone has highly memorable middle names and none of the assassins could ever be called dull. We get a collection of Sicilian mercenaries loopy neo-Nazi's with machete's and Chainsaws (one has to admire a movie which allows an assassin to use a chainsaw), and no nonsense fully armed females (which includes Alicia Keys in highly enjoyable form). We also get Ben Affleck making another appearance on the road to career rehabilitation as a bondsman and Carnahan favourite Ray Liotta as an FBI agent. All in all an entertaining cast even Ryan Reynolds gets to cool off on the comedy and act all serious as Liotta's partner.

The trailer suggested non stop action but in reality we could never expect that despite the thumping Motorhead back-up music so instead we get a lot of build-up play but there is no need to feel disappointment as it seems Carnahan can do build-up pretty damn well. He teases out the chance of violence every few minutes after the exposition high first 1/3 (of which you'll probably only pick up half of what was said, which thankfully doesn't matter too much in the big scheme of the movie bar a pretty clearly telegraphed plot twist). Some suggestive music and players getting into position is enough to have you thinking the sparks will fly before Carnahan pulls back and allows the wait to continue. It's a true credit to the director however that none of this feels contrived or boring instead having the strange effect of making the movies pace seem faster. Last years Lucky Number Slevin had all the pace of a snail by comparison.

When the action finally hits, it truly delivers, and then some. The stylised mayhem on display grips you in a way most action films have failed to replication in quite a while. All touches of slow motion, blazing gunfire and of course the previously mentioned chainsaw, in the relatively short time the action elements play. Indeed Carnahan makes a serious case for being the best man to direct an action movie in Hollywood at the moment. A big budget Hollywood blockbuster awaits this mans hands if the powers that be have any sense.

But it isn't all sunshine and roses however. Liotta's and Reynolds characters are a tad to serious for proceedings compared to some of the assassins in the mix and the movies ending attempts to saddle what went before with something way to deep and meaningful for this type of movie, instead ending up doing nothing more then making a major character look like an impulsive idiot.

For a January release however, a month usually reserved for the dregs and holiday cast-offs this delivers the goods. Carnahan can continue his rise thru the Hollywood ranks.

Review written by Gulli, for film site Boxofficefanatic.com.

Dreamgirls (2006)

Dreamgirls is fantastic

[10/10 · 29 December 2006]

A star is born with the release of 'Dreamgirls', and her name is Jennifer Hudson. With a performance about as good as one can hope, combined with dazzling music numbers and excellent direction, 'Dreamgirls' is one of the year's very best. For those who were skeptical over the film's glowing praise, believe that Bill Condon's film will make you want to stand up and clap 'till your hands are red and sore. It not only stands as a terrific and entertaining production, but a vastly important film that helps define an era.

'Dreamgirls' shows us the rise to fame, and the fall from grace. How a star is born, and how a star is broken. The 1960s are still young, and the music of Motown is quickly riding up the charts. For Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles), Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose), and lead singer Effie White (Jennifer Hudson), the Dreamettes have been waiting for their big break for years. And thanks to music executive Curtis Taylor (Jamie Foxx) and the musical talent of James 'Thunder' Early (Eddie Murphy), their wish will soon be granted. Yet when Effie is unwillingly moved to backup vocals to better the group's image just as they're about to break out onto the music scene, it will eventually lead to her being ousted from the group and replaced. Renamed Deena and the Dreams, their soulful talent will be met with a frenzy of fame that results in hit after hit. But all that is well does not always end well, and these Dreamgirls still have a rocky road ahead of them and a thing or two to learn.

The third season of American Idol first exposed Jennifer Hudson and her voice to America for all to hear, but a voting controversy one week led to her early exit. Fans of the show knew Miss Hudson wouldn't be gone for long, but who would have thought it would be under such awesome conditions. As Hudson stands alone on stage and belts out 'And I Tell You I'm Not Going' with all her heart and soul, she single-handedly gives birth to one of the greatest, most awe-inspiring and chill-inducing moments in cinema history. And as the audience in my theater broke out into immediate applause, I knew, Hudson has just sealed her Oscar victory, and it couldn't be more deserving. What an amazing talent that lights up the screen, stealing every scene she appears in. You done good, Jennifer. You done good.

Despite Hudson's show-stopping performance, 'Dreamgirls' is not short on talent. Beyoncé gives her best performance to date, starring as the lead singer in the trio that experiences the ups and downs of fame over the years. Comparisons, anyone? And though their performances don't live up to the women, the film's men - headed by Jamie Foxx and Eddie Murphy - still deliver notable performances. Nobody can touch the soulful beauty and voice of Hudson, but together 'Dreamgirls' offers up one of the year's best ensemble casts.

Without skipping a note, 'Dreamgirls' captures the essence of Motown and carries itself through the '60s and into the funky '70s. It successfully addresses the civil rights struggle and downside of Hollywood all through the celebration of music. And even through the film's remarkable and catchy musical numbers, Condon - who in addition to directing also wrote the film's script - does not fail to tell a dazzling and compelling story that transcends the typical musical genre. It's a wonderfully dynamic picture that carries itself with dignity and grace, with great cinematography and costume design, and doesn't lose points with a story that's been told before in varying forms. Because ultimately, the film's heart shines bright for all to see, and that's not something that happens on accident.

When the envelope is unsealed and the Oscar for Best Picture is awarded, do not be surprised if 'Dreamgirls' is met with a rapturous applause. It's the film to beat this year, as this flashy spectacle sings its way to the top. It's the definition of Oscar bait, but none moreso than Jennifer Hudson, who better be making room on her mantle for the many awards sure to come her way. Bill Condon masterfully crafts this beautiful extravaganza that must be experienced by all, for none are immune to its inspiring wonder. Feel the soulful sounds of Motown run through your veins, 'Dreamgirls' is the movie event of the year.

Two-Word Review Generation Defining

Review by Burtonesque, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

The Queen (2006)

A wonderful and surprisingly entertaining Queen, with a knockout performance by Mirren!

[8/10 · 29 December 2006]

The Queen, starring Helen Mirren, takes us deep into the monarchy and British government in the week Princess Diana died. Queen Elizabeth II and her family never had a solid relationship with Diana, and after they neglect to pay tribute to her grave or raise a flag at half mast in her honor, it the country almost turns on the monarchy completely. The film plays the inner conversations and workings of that week, recreating the constitutional world and all its sometimes players, as they try to deal with the fateful tragedy.

Much like 2004's Ray, or 2005's Capote, a lot of the attention of the film has been thanks to its lead performance, rather than the film itself. Helen Mirren has led one of the most dominating campaigns in Oscar history, winning every single critics award she could possibly win in this lead-up month of December, even going as far as winning at an African-American award ceremony, where normally only African-Americans are eligible. But, with all the hype, Mirren's praise and eventual Oscar is deserved. She is brilliant in the role, taking it past pure mimicry, with an unbelievably layered performance, showing all sides of Elizabeth seemingly easy. Part of the beauty of her work is that she needs no big scenes, no breakdowns, no showy moments, she plays the performance low-key and subtle, it is in the expressions on her face as she reacts to what people are saying, the way her mouth and face moves throughout the film, that make it brilliant.

Not to be outdone, the screenplay in The Queen absolutely shines. When dealing with a subject like inner monarchy and governmental politics in Britain, where the film mainly consists of people talking to each other, under normal circumstances there would be an opportunity for the film to bore, especially when dealing with someone like myself who knows nothing of the subject. But the screenplay is so sharp and upbeat, the film does the impossible of actually being very very entertaining throughout, to the point where its 1 hour 39 minutes fly by.

The film isn't necessarily heavy on plot and story complications, rather it is an in-depth look at what happened behind the scenes in that devastating week, re-creating the conversations of how to deal with it. While all the monarchy and government are regal, the film manages to paint them as people, whether it be something like Blair's off-shoot comments to his wife after first meeting Elizabeth, or the Queen driving a car into a river, where in one of the film's better scenes, she sees a large and beautiful stag, a symbolism for life and the beauty of it.

The direction, set design, use of real life footage, and ensemble acting besides Mirren, which would include charismatic Michael Sheen as Tony Blair, and other actors playing the parts of Prince Charles, Prince Philip, and Queen Elizabeth I, are all very solid. The Queen is a very well made film, and following in the footsteps of Ray and Capote, I consider it a strong enough film away from the main performance, to stand on it's own as an Oscar contender and worthy achievement to the most quality films of the year. While in the future it will not be remembered as much as something like The Departed from this year, The Queen stands as a worthwhile drama and tribute to Queen Elizabeth II and her toughness and persistence during the mother country's devastating week.

Review by Julien R., written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

Black Christmas (2006)

Dumb Fun

[5/10 · 28 December 2006]

There's no conceptual thought process with a film like 'Black Christmas', but I'll be damned if I said the creators of 'Final Destination' didn't know how to make a stylish and entertaining picture. Despite its nice holiday set-up, the film is bogged down by its many clichés and plot holes. And while it's not scary in the least, the film gets points for offing characters in creative, and quite funny, ways. Another throw-away slasher, but one that'll keep your attention and may leave you somewhat satisfied.

It's Christmastime, and a group of sorority sisters are celebrating the best way they know how, bickering and exchanging Secret Santa gifts. And every year, there's one present under the tree addressed to Billy, the reason why their house is now a legend. For fifteen years ago, Billy, who was abused by his mother and locked up in the attic, brutally murdered his mother and her boyfriend while sparing his sister... who also happens to be his daughter. It all happened here in the house the girls now stay in, and this year, Billy is coming home for the holidays. Home to his childhood house. Suddenly, the girls begin to receive a series of frightening and threatening phone calls from a mysterious caller that appears to be inside the house. Now, stranded in the middle of a winter storm, Alpha Kappa will begin to lose its members one by one in the grimmest ways possible.

Written, produced, and directed by Glen Morgan, 'Black Christmas' is lucky it has style, because its villain is the antithesis of scary. And though there are some disturbing scenes, contained mainly in the film's flashbacks of Billy's upbringing, there's nothing in this film that would qualify as scary. You see one slasher, you've seen them all. Instead, 'Christmas' works on many of the same levels as the 'Final Destination' films, in the way they act as little more than elaborate death scenes one after the other. And hell, this may indeed be the goriest Christmas flick ever made, and that'll sure please the horror junkies. When all else fails, pile on the blood. Even when your film bends the rules of reality with gaping plot holes, a few buckets of blood will set things right. Right? The film's acting is what you'd expect, to be honest. A few talented actresses with a poor script to work with, but require less than the bulb that lights the scene. It is, however, nice to see Lacey Chabert back in action after lying low after her breakout performance in 'Mean Girls'. A fantastic actress, she just needs to find a script to suit her talent. The rest of the cast features many horror film vixens, including Katie Cassidy ('When A Stranger Calls'), Mary Elizabeth Winstead ('Final Destination 3'), Kristen Clock ('Final Destination'), Crystal Lowe ('Final Destination 3')and Andrea Martin, who starred in the original 1974 'Black Christmas'. Chabert and Michelle Trachtenberg are the lone horror virgins, but something tells me that won't last.

If you're sick of the saccharine Christmas movies, and looking for something a bit more sac religious, 'Black Christmas' is a fairly safe bet. It's not a good movie by any standards, but acts as a nice diversion before you get back to your busy life. Just be aware of what you're getting yourself into, as you're not likely to find an ounce of originality in Morgan's latest fright(less) fest. If you're a fan of bad horror films, sit back and enjoy the ride. If not, stay away. Otherwise, you may lose your appetite for Christmas cookies.

Review by Burtonesque, written for www.boxofficefanatic.com

Rocky Balboa (2006)

Rocky is back baby! You are going to laugh, shout, and stand up and say ROCKY!

[8/10 · 25 December 2006]

Rocky Balboa is the surprise of the year, it was the underdog and the shut out, but now the champ is back on top. Rocky is one of if not my favorite movie which I just realized a couple of days ago with a re-visit, it's such a champ's story, the underdog story and it just grabs your heart and doesn't let go. Now I am not a fan of the movie's sequels, I disregard 3-5, they range from okay to crap and I just, do not like them. Like everyone else I was very skeptical upon hearing that this was being made, it comes off as the sort of cash grab Hollywood has these days, giving re-birth to old franchises that really don't need sequels. In truth, the Rocky movies never needed more than one movie, but if there had to be a sequel this is the one I accept.

To many's surprise, it was getting good reviews, not unlike a pleasant Charlotte's Web is loved by critics with good reviews, no this sequel was actually being called good. The trailers were fine, but it was not until the TV spots when I started to get excited. Was this going to be the surprise of the year, the comeback of the year? Was this movie going to be, dare I say it? Great?!? No one would have thought, but boy is it ever great. I can tell some are still skeptical even with the great reviews and my review, it is because it is just another sequel, but please do not let that stop you. This is a great movie, ignore the crappy ones, this gives re-birth and a very great END to the franchise that obviously should have never been.

Stallone said in interviews that he made this because he was so unhappy how Rocky V turned out that he just had to get it out of his system he needed Rocky to end as the underdog, but still a champ. Call it a cash grab, which in a way it is because lets face Stallone isn't getting work like he used to, which when he used to wasn't anything to rave over, but as much as it is just another sequel, it's not just another sequel. He truly has put a lot of heart in the making of this film, he really wanted this to be great and well Sly my friend, you did it.

Stallone wrote, directed & starred in Rocky Balboa, a lot to take on for a man of his age. He did it all with ease. The writing to my surprise is really well done; the dialogue in the movie is wonderfully set. Be warned this movie is a lot more of a drama than a sports epic, but NO, DON'T BE AFRAID! Do not let the word drama turn you away. Rocky Balboa does contain a lot of dialogue but it is so well written and said during the movie that you honestly don't miss the action and you're compelled to these characters, the talks between Rocky and someone's grave, who I shall not name if you haven't seen it, the talks between Rocky and his son, Rocky and Paula, Rocky and everyone else, are all very well done, I have to really say.

Now there is action, the last 10 minutes is action, PURE action from start to finish, I guarantee you will not be disappointed. The moment you hear the theme, when he starts his training, like everyone in the theatre you will cheer, applaud, cry and stand up and move with Rocky, the blood starts pumping. I swear to you this is the only movie this year that has and probably will remain like this with the exception of Dreamgirls that has given me chills all over my body, when he is in that ring, with the lights glaring, the commentary going, the crowd going wild you are at the edge of your seat cheering the underdog on! Rocky Balboa is not only the surprise movie of the year but one of the best, and I have to say I was so pleasantly put back by how great this movie, I guarantee you will not be disappointed. Rocky is back ladies and gents.

Bottom Line: Rocky is back baby, you are going to cheer, you are going to laugh, you are to shout and stand up and say, ROCKY! Review by Jordan Appugliesi, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

Night at the Museum (2006)

A nice way to pass the time, nothing more.

[5/10 · 23 December 2006]

In Night of the Museum, Ben Stiller plays Larry Daley, a divorced middle aged man who has gone through failure after failure, spending his life always attempting schemes to make it as something big, but never succeeding. After being freshly evicted, he finally settles for a fall-back job, for his 10-year old son. He ends up taking a job at a Museum of Natural History as a night guard, a seemingly safe and mellow position... seemingly. After receiving instructions from the trio of elderly workers who were employed previously to him, he begins his duty, at which point the surprise comes. The entire museum comes to life at night.

Night at the Museum is on occasion, a charming and enjoyable film to watch, particularly in the second half when the pace picks up dramatically. However, it has its fair share of problems, which end up hurting the film. Before it gets to the second half, it begins with an act displaying Larry's personal life, which is a nice attempt at humanizing this guy, but ends up being unbelievably stale and forgettable. A few years back Stiller branded himself forever as the king of silly with Zoolander, and later followed that up with Starsky & Hutch and Dodgeball among cameos in other Frat Pack comedies, but along with that, he has always tried to play sentimental roles as well, with Keep the Faith, Along Came Polly, Duplex, Envy, and now this. But the reality is, he's just not good at it, and he always seems to play the exact same character, and it never works. He bumbles, he fidgets, he trys his dorky thing, but he fails to show any emotional depth in the character or at all, he is completely bland in the role, and while he is not immediately dislikable, he is forgettable along with every aspect of the character's personal life in the film.

The true highlights of Night at the Museum, and really its saving grace from being awful, are easily the toys, artifacts, and statues in the museum itself, brought to life absolutely splendidly with top notch CGI and visual effects. As well, not only in the visuals do they shine, but in the actors, there is a joy to the way the high-profile cast and other extras just have fun fooling around in their roles as figurines and statues around the museum. Owen Wilson as a miniature cowboy is as charismatic as he has been, and Steve Coogan as his Roman general counterpart is no worse. Together they are able to form a formidable pair with great chemistry, both playing their time period roles strongly, they both bring life and depth to their characters, despite being toys on screen. But best of all is Robin Williams, who gives one of his best performances in recent years as the wax version of Teddy Roosevelt, he is surprisingly very good at showing both charm and heart in his guiding role. The rest of the artifacts in the museum including a fossilized T-Rex, an Easter Island statue, an Attila the Hun brought to life, and some fire craving cave men, are all entertaining and fun to watch run wild.

The film itself in particular, as mentioned, picks up a great amount steam and pace in the second half of the film, once it focuses on the artifacts' situation and the mission they end up taking, it seems to drop Stiller's character and focus and the pure fun. But that can't overcome the film's flaws, such as the blandness of the lead character, and without giving away too much, there are a few illogical holes dealing with the characters and their motivations in the film. Also Shawn Levy's direction is a bit weak, at times it seems he doesn't capture the beauty of the lively museum world enough, and he seems to paint the film in the same sentimental light of all others of its kind.

Bottom Line: Night at the Museum is a decent way to pass the time, but nothing more.

Review by Julien R., written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

Charlotte's Web (2006)

The simpleness and humbleness makes Charlotte's Web shine

[8/10 · 22 December 2006]

In the age were remakes come out every month or so, we are rarely shown a true remake that either outdoes the original or brings new life into the movie, showing maybe it did need a remake. We really have not had a great remake in a while; the last one I really enjoyed was Last Holiday. Charlotte's Web, the 2006 version, is the live action version remake of the animated classic that was adapted from the classic E.B White book of the same name. Too many's amazement, this version won over the critics, scoring a certified fresh 81% on Rottentomatoes.com.

Charlotte's Web was one of my favorite books growing up as a kid, along with E.B White's other classic turned into a live action movie with a CGI star, Stuart Little. The book is short, but the story it delivers and the emotions and heart is has is bigger than any could have imagined, and it became such a classic that was passed down by generation to generation. The same goes for the animated version which is a really great movie, that has stood the test of time and is still very great to this day, but it did need a revamp which actually made this remake worth the wait and desirable. Some critics said it could have and maybe should have been made into a CGI movie but then really, was that needed, maybe would have it been tossed into the other loads of CGI garbage we get every year.

Personally I think the choice of a live action version was very smart because as kid friendly the story is, with the inclusion of humans and farm animals who are real it can bring in the parents more. Now die-hard fans of the animated movie will obviously compare it to this, to which is better, in my opinion, this outdoes the original because of obviously the advances in technology, and just the story feels a lot more dramatic. I did enjoy the animated version but this one brought me closer to tears during the ending than the original did, and it achieves that really well, you actually feel for these animals, and the CGI star, who all comes to you know what if your read the book during the end which leaves you quite and very sad.

Charlotte's Web is one of my favorite movies of 2006, my score may not be amazing for it but simply put, its just a very good movie, nothing more, nothing less, but I do favor it a lot because it was so well done, such a beautiful and simple, very humble movie. It has CGI yes, Charlotte is in CGI because trying to film a real spider would have been hell. Charlotte though, who is voiced wonderfully by Julia Roberts, doesn't come off as soft or pretty as she did in the original, she is a lot, to put it bluntly, ugly. She is not a beautiful looking creature, but she proves that it does not matter what you look like on the outside, it is what matters on the inside that counts. Charlotte who is obviously just a spider, is such an inspirational character who comes off real at times because she is such a gentle being, it's really remarkable how brilliant E.B White made this not so spectacular animal into something wonderful and memorable.

The major talk about Charlotte's Web is all the A - List stars who are in the movie and who voice all of the animals, you've got your Oprah, your Reba, your Julia Roberts, Robert Redford, & Steve Buscemi. Now my main concern with this version is all the stars that do the voices of the animals, was it going to get in the way of the story? Admittly, it does at times because you're sitting there hearing Charlotte speak and it's Julia Roberts, and that's all you think to yourself, same with Oprah or Steve, but that's at the beginning, then the real heart, the meat of the story comes in, and you start getting a bit emotional and your connection with the story and your childhood, and you forget about that and start to understand the connection, the great friendship between "some pig" named Wilbur & this gentle little spider named Charlotte, a friendship that really has an effect on not only Wilbur, but its audience.

Speaking of the voices in the movie, they are all very well done. Julia is obviously not as memorable or brilliant as Debbie Reynolds was in the original, but she does very well. Oprah is very good, which is surprising. Dakota Fanning is brilliant as always and is very gentle and moving as fern, she is very good here. The CGI is very well done, you never once think about the fact that a pig is talking, you just accept it, I never questioned it to be fake, comes off very well. I think the message, the simple little message of friendship, of discrimination, shines so brightly in this humble little remake, which is worth the price of admission. I have to truly say that this is the movie you have to take your kids to see, enough with the Happy Feet, yes it's excellent but when they are young and you want to show them the classics, this movie is the movie I wish for all parents to take their kids to see this Holiday season.

Bottom Line: The simpleness and humbleness of Charlotte's Web really make it shine.

Review by Jordan Appugliesi, written for www.boxofficefanatic.com

The Holiday (2006)

A real winter charmer!

[8/10 · 22 December 2006]

Unbelievably, The Holiday is the only great romantic comedy this year since The Last Holiday, which came out almost a year ago. I did not think one could top it, The Break-Up was not a technical romcom, though it was good. When I saw the trailer for The Holiday, then the poster, and then found out who wrote and directed this movie was the excellent Nancy Meyers, I just knew, never had any doubt, I was going to love this movie. The reviews did worry me and one of my most trusted critics, Richard Roeper did not enjoy it, but I do not always follow the critics so my expectations were still quite high. The cast also had me hooked, I love Kate Winslet, but having Jack Black in a romantic comedy looking prim and proper and not acting silly and wild, was very intriguing, I wanted just to know how he felt in this role. One of my favorite, very favorite movies ever is Something's Gotta Give, so you can see were my high expectations came from, I am a huge fan of Meyers because she writes and directs such great romantic comedies.

The Holiday did not let me down one bit. When I was reading or listening to some of the reviews for the movie, the negative ones in particular talked about how formulaic the movie is. While watching, I have to agree it is a formulaic movie, and some instances are not very original which did have me worried, because most movies that are formulaic can't overcome that and end up being stuck in a "just another romcom, like the rest of them" zone, or they were just okay movies, and I didn't want a just okay movie. Now to give it credit, the film is not all formulaic, but when it is, boy is it ever. Now you're asking yourself, if it is formulaic, why are you giving it such a great grade. It is because of the cast and the way in which the movie was presented, both are such great strengths in the movie. The acting is not anything Oscar worthy but it so full of life, love and joy that you cannot help but be won over by these wonderful characters.

This by far has to be my favorite role for Jack Black, or second favorite comparing to him in School of Rock. He is not his wacky self, or him being wild and spastic, which his hardcore fans may not love, so go see Tenacious D if you are looking for the typical Jack, but here we have a completely different person. He is relaxed, he is full of joy and heart and he is just cool. He also has never looked better in a movie, very put together and looks very nice besides the stunningly beautiful and extra talented Kate Winslet who is just so relaxed and effortless in her role, you just love her automatically. Cameron Diaz, I am not the biggest fan of her in real life, but she is very good in this movie, in the beginning she is really awkward and bad, but she grows on you through out and you get a hold of her character and you end up knowing her like a friend. Jude Law is the typical woman's man, and he just stands there and looks good but his story, which well if you've seen it then you know it is really quite a turn, and not so generic or clichéd and I really, really admired it because it got to me.

The movie is also really, really excellently shot in both the U.K and L.A. It shows both of them really well, and England looks like a dream during Christmas time, also the house they used or cottage which is Kate's is very nice, and cozy. That is why I loved this movie, two separate stories with their own similarities, but entirely different because of the characters, who bring these heartfelt stories to life. This is a very girlie romcom and I am surprised I liked it so much, for the reason that I am a guy and I am not into the mushy romcoms that often. Though I have to admit this gets to you, it makes you cheer, it makes you laugh aloud and it makes you cry, it just makes you feel damn happy at the end, it has such a great and cheerful ending. It is sappy and it is somewhat formulaic, but it works so incredibly well and I really cherished this movie. This is the movie of the holiday season along with The Pursuit of Happiness & Charlotte's Web. It will make your holiday I swear, you must run out and see it.

Bottom Line: Cheerful, sappy, funny, and extremely charming, the Holiday is a winter charmer.

Review by Jordan Appugliesi, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

Children of Men (2006)

A masterpiece.

[10/10 · 21 December 2006]

This year's best Oscar winner will not deserve its win. A big claim you might say, but after watching Alfonso Caurons masterpiece of film-making Children of Men I have no hesitation in saying it, because when this film finally gets overlooked in the Oscar shakedown mainly due to inept Fox release scheduling and tepid marketing the final five going for the gold statue will know they're in a field bereft of the best movie of 2006.

From the start this film has the deck stacked against it. It lays in the genre of Dystopian Sci-Fi a section of cinema that's the ultimate anaemia to an Oscar voter. And it doesn't feature any blatant Oscar baiting characters to worm into the hearts of the Oscar judges an essential ingredient to convincing the academy for a vote. Instead what you get is a movie built on stunning cinematography, understated but pitch perfect acting, seriously engaging issues and a generally all round aura of every piece fitting perfectly into place.

The world given to us by Alfonso Cauron is a painstakingly constructed vision of near tomorrow where women have become infertile and the world has slowly descended into chaos with only the battered but still standing Island of Britain left to live out the last days of civilization. The detail of this work is at a level that has never been achieved before in film. London is a smog ridden shadow of its former self as people move about in old battered cars and litter lays in large quantities on the streets, while the little glimpses of technology that could be conceivable be in use in the year 2027 (the films setting) are woven into the film seamlessly, never looking like a crude superimposed extra.

But it isn't just the visuals that stand out as we get a number of truly memorable scenes throughout the movie. One of Theo (Clive Owen) visiting his cousin Nigel (Danny Huston) in citadel-like "Ark of Art" is at turns haunting and touching as they stand in the remains of humanity's visual expression. Then there is a scene in a farmhouse which is one of the tensest sequences ever put to screen, but the main set piece is the battle sequence near the end of the movie which is played out in one incredibly constructed single shot which no cuts at any stage. It is a compellingly realistic snapshot of urban warfare which no other film has ever come close to matching and is perfect showcase for the director's visual flair.

Even men like Michael Caine an actor who has of late descended into predictable roles doesn't disappoint, his Pot smoking yet gentle hearted Jasper is a highly enjoyable play against type while elsewhere people like Chiwetel Ejiofor as one of the figureheads of the "Fishes" an anti-government group and Julianne Moore as Julian the Fishes leader give performances at par with the best of their careers.

Mention should also be made of the films interweaving into the plot current hot button issues like terrorism, immigration and racial tolerance all of which fits seamlessly into the film. Even the soundtrack is without fault with each song fitting its scene in an apt manner.

It's a film that in the coming years will be looked on as a true classic if only this reviewer was proved wrong on Oscar night and it became a current classic as well. Here's hoping.

Review by Gulli, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

Smith breathes life into his film in a way few actors have this year, though ultimately this is a predictable pursuit

[6/10 · 20 December 2006]

When a big, likable star goes "serious," it seems that everyone must pay attention. This is the case with "The Pursuit of Happiness," (yes, "Happiness" with a "y") where box office superstar Will Smith ditches the action hero get-up and the comedic angle of "Hitch" for a serious turn as a real person. Due mostly to his superstardom and the fact that he hasn't tapped into this kind of role (or at least not recently), Smith is getting early awards attention for his role, as distributor Sony is pulling out all the stops to assure the star his second nod (following his revelatory turn as Muhammad Ali in Michael Mann's engaging but overstuffed 2001 biopic "Ali"), and Oprah Winfrey has also jumped on board in support of the star.

In spite of the movie's insane predictability, Will Smith makes the whole ordeal work. His on-screen charisma and likability add to a performance that shows his entire range as a dramatic actor, which was unknown in his previous roles. He carries the movie from start-to-finish, successfully giving the audience a likable hero to cheer for. It's certainly a powerhouse performance, and he pulls it off convincingly enough for the movie to click. It's really Smith's movie, and he ends up doing a lot with it. While it's not his best role (a title that still goes to his portrayal of Muhammad Ali), it's certainly among the top of his career. As far as effort and skill goes, this is arguably Smith's most ambitious turn to date, and he is in every way the movie's "MVP." The decision to cast his son Jaden as Gardner's son in the film was very wise, as the two have perfect chemistry, believably playing out the father-son relationship. Sadly, the rest of the cast is flat, even the usually dependable Thandie Newton, who is annoying and somewhat miscast as Gardner's wife.

As was said before, it's Smith's performance that carries the movie, elevating it from average mediocrity and making its flaws less visible. The script gives way to strong material for Smith, but not really for anyone else. To be honest, the rest of the characters seem like the kinds that are just randomly tossed into the film for filler purposes. The film also spends so much time on Gardner's personal conflicts that there's never really much insight on what he had to do to get the job. The audience is supposed to take the Dean Witter big-wigs at their word that Chris is diligent and- more importantly- the best choice for the job, as there is very little time spent on what he must do to earn the job. The musical score is also overly obvious and derivative, and it ends up getting in the way of important scenes. (For example, an inspirational tune plays in the background while Gardner advises his son to "never let anyone tell him he can't do something").

The one thing that "The Pursuit of Happiness" sadly cannot be redeemed for is its constant predictability. Though it has to be expected (if the movie didn't end like about nine out of ten people who will see this movie think it will, there would be no reason for its existence), there isn't a whole lot in the film that cannot be seen coming from a mile away. Though the real Chris Gardner's story is uplifting and inspirational, it- like all such stories- doesn't transfer over to celluloid as well as it sounds when told in the form of a book or a news segment. Granted, it's not as annoying or tedious as other such "triumph of the human spirit" films, but anyone who sees the film will pretty much know what to get going in. It helps that it's easy to feel good for Gardner given his reasons for what he does and that he achieves it not only for himself, but for his son. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it seems to load up on the clichés and provide very few surprises, though it still somehow manages to stay likable and appealing in spite of its flaws.

For the most part, "Pursuit of Happiness" clicks. After it's past the 45-minute mark, it moves quickly and is an appealing, mildly uplifting movie, though the ending is abrupt and it takes a while to really get going. It's being sold as a "feel-good film," and though the movie tries its hardest to depress the audience for the first 105 minutes before lifting its spirits in the last five, it's a safe bet that audiences will walk out feeling good for what Gardner has achieved. Though it's not really anything special, Will Smith does a very nice job, and as such, single-handedly makes it a reasonably good way to spend two hours. Essentially, Smith takes his trademark life and breathes it into the film in a way that few (if any) actors have managed to accomplish this year. For that- if nothing else- "The Pursuit of Happiness" is worth a look.

Review by W. Slinger, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

Blood Diamond (2006)

I loved this film. If Dicaprio and Hounsou aren't nominated for awards this year, the academy has really lost it

[9/10 · 20 December 2006]

Blood Diamond is the latest film that discusses the ever-growing violence in Africa. The plot of the film is rather simple. Djimon Hounsou plays Solomon Vandy, a fisherman in South Africa, who is taken by rebels to work in the diamond mines. The same rebels also take his son and begin to mold him into a soldier. Leonardo DiCaprio is Danny Archer, a Zimbabwe mercenary turned diamond smuggler. The two meet in prison after DiCaprio gets caught smuggling diamonds and the mine that Hounsou worked at was raided by government forces. However, before the government forces stormed the mine, Hounsou found and hid a diamond that is worth a fortune. Archer and Vandy team up to find the diamond, Archer wanting money and Vandy wanting to get his family back.

A film like this lives and dies on the shoulders of the actors. Luckily, director Edward Zwick was able to get two of the best actors around for the roles. DiCaprio gives his best performance of his life in the film. Trailers had me worried at the beginning with his accent, but it works perfectly in the film. He plays the arrogant, asshole character very well and causes the audience to keep guessing on what his character may do next. I would give him an Oscar nomination for this over The Departed. Hounsou has a very difficult character to play. Due to his built, he is a very intimidating person. However, his character in the film is very different. Vandy is polite, soft spoken, and is only a violent man when his family is in danger. DiCaprio and Hounsou have great chemistry and watching their character's friendship grow as the film progressive is exciting to see. Jennifer Connelly also stars as Maddy Bowen, a journalist and love interest to Archer. Her character really was underused and did not serve much of a purpose until the last 10 to 15 minutes. Connelly was good in the limited time she was used but the love story did not work very well and seem somewhat forced.

The violence in the film surprised me a lot. I was not expecting a lot of gore but I was very surprised. The audience saw hands cut off, heads blown apart, and blood, lots of blood. However, none of the violence took away from the story, the violence was there to show just what was happening in Africa and I credit Zwick for doing it as tasteful as possible. The direction of the film was perfect. There were some beautiful shots in the film, especially the final shot in Africa. It really showed how beautiful the country could be if there was not so much death and destruction.

The plot seemed tough to believe at first. I just could not buy Vandy allying himself with Archer. Vandy held all the cards and did not need to deal Archer in but for some reason he did. I slowly bought into it though and this allowed me to enjoy the film. The movie really was a character study on how two people so opposite who believed opposite things could get along and start to become friends. Towards the end of the third act you could feel for these characters and wanted their friendship to last outside of Africa even if you knew that it would not. The movie is a bit predictable but it still does not take away how powerful the film really is.

Overall, I loved this film. I thought it was almost perfect in everyway. If DiCaprio and Hounsou are not nominated for Oscars after their roles, then the Academy really has lost it. The direction is near perfect and the soundtrack was great.

Review by Jay, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

Eragon (2006)

Lacking, lacking, lacking. Can't help but compare it, to much better fantasy films released recently.

[4/10 · 20 December 2006]

What most dooms Eragon is the fact that, as hard as it tries to be different, it is impossible for the viewer to not help but draw comparisons to "Lord of the Rings," be it plot, visuals, acting, script, and setting. Being forced to compare this to such a great trilogy does not help this fantasy adventure film out, because in every aspect, it falls greatly under the high bar set by "Rings." The biggest problem that the film faces is Eragon himself, played by Edward Speelers, a guy in his late teens who has had no acting experience whatsoever. It really shows. Although neither Elijah Wood (who played Frodo) or Daniel Radcliff (who plays Harry Potter) were phenomenal actors or the core of their fantasy franchises, they at least managed to create emotional depth that allows us to really worry about them. For Frodo, Wood makes us really care about whether or not he will manage to fight off the power of the ring, and Radcliffe lets us see both the adventurous side of Harry, as well as the teenage side wanting to live a normal life. Speelers, on the other hand, cannot ever take Eragon much further than speaking normal lines. When he attempts to show great emotion, it is very difficult to really let yourself be thrown into his character.

Although the visuals for the film are quite remarkable (they are the highlight of the film and worthy of an Oscar nomination), many of the other technicalities the film faces are not so successfully handled. Creating costumes for a fantasy world is very difficult to pull off without making them look ridiculous, but Peter Jackson appeared to have no trouble at all accomplishing this. While the simpler clothing (Eragon's peasant clothing) works out fine, much of what you see people wear is enough on its own to make you take your eye off what is happening in the film and stare at these bizarre wardrobes.

You would think that when a film is getting a response this weak, I would probably be hoping that it would have been shorter. On the contrary, this one hour, fifty minute picture is greatly harmed by being far too short. What this prevents from happening is allowing any of the scenes to have any depth or true emotion. In "Lord of the Rings," the Battle of Minas Tirith was probably about forty minutes in total. Here, the great climactic battle is no more than ten minutes in length, and because the film ends shortly afterwards, you are left with a great longing to have seen more than what you got. If it had been another thirty or forty minutes longer (and yes, I really mean that much), the pacing could have been much better and allowed the film to cover more than it did, making it a better overall film experience. Although there are many problems with Eragon, "boring" is one of the last words I would use to describe it.

Summary: Although "Eragon" is an entertaining and fun adaptation, it lacks far too much in the areas that count to join the ranks of "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" as one of the great sagas of our time.

Review by Billybob Washere, written for film site www.boxofficefanatic.com

The Nativity Story (2006)

A fairly nice movie, but too faithful and safe to be truly great

[6/10 · 5 December 2006]

I was talking to a good friend during this week, when The Nativity Story came up, and I mentioned how I wasn't surprised by its negative reviews. It has somewhat split the critics, but the reality is that most religious films do that, for example The Passion of the Christ completely split them. They are usually either called out for being too truthful to the story, to the point where it is said you might as well read that part of the bible because it's practically word for word, or it is called out for being too far from the truth, and demeaning towards the holy source, and as a result religious films rarely win when they take either route. Nativity is the former case, where it is practically word for word from the Bible, which is a good thing. Now mind you the whole movie is in Italian, and luckily enough I understand enough to get whats going on, but the truth is the movie is so word for word and the story is so well known, that you could see this movie in any language and still understand what is going on. A lot of controversy surrounded this movie because its star, Keisha Castle-Hughes reflected her character the Virgin Mary, in that earlier this year it was revealed the 16 year old actress was pregnant. How oddly close is that to the movie, obviously minus the fact Hughes isn't giving birth to Jesus.

The Nativity Story is a good film, hovering between a low 6 or a high 7 on my grading scale. The movie is beautifully, beautifully shot, and it's a treat for the eyes, but it's also quite slow. But you know what, at the end of the day the Bible isn't exactly Casino Royale. But for it's base story, it's well paced. The acting is good, Hughes is somewhat stiff at the beginning, but near the end as the movie goes on she grows and becomes a lot stronger. It's about time this movie has been made, because it's such a beautiful story. My main beefs with The Nativity Story was that at times it could have picked up, but it actually isn't too slow of a film. Also the birth of Jesus at the end was messy(not in that way!), and the birth sequence was really short, the real birth was in all likelihood not that short. You're either going to love this film for being so close to the story, or hate it. But with a story like this, that is so well known, it's hard to add much. When this film shines, it shines. When it doesn't, it really doesn't. The lighting is beautiful, the scene with the snake, and when Joseph asks God for a sign and nothing happens, were two of my favourites scenes.

The Nativity Story is one of the few surprises of this year. It may not be fresh on RT, but that shouldn't stop you from seeing this movie. It is a good religious experience, and this time unlike the Passion, the whole family is able to go. The acting is wonderful, sometimes stiff, but still good. Like I mentioned before, the movie itself is very well shot, it's a beautiful and a beautiful site. The biggest problem is as I mentioned above, it doesn't offer anything new, it takes no risk with the story or any diversion, not even a little risk whatsoever. Those who know it really well will feel somewhat, bored. It is in that been-there done-that territory because a lot of us know this story so well.

Bottom Line: Nativity Story is wonderful movie for the whole family to see, it is just too faithful to be truly great, taking no risks and being very safe.

Review by Jordan Appuglisi for www.BoxOfficeFanatic.com