JP's Movie Review Thread

[NatrlBornThrllr]

I've gotten into the habit of watching a different movie every day (be it a recent DVD purchase, a pay-per view rental, or an older flic on a movie channel). I'm going to post a daily review of every movie I watch.

All reviews will contain:
-The title of the movie (and the year in which it was released in the US).
-A photo (if available).
-A plot summary.
-My personal comments about the film.
-A list of awards and nominations the film received (only Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Cannes and Sundance Film Festival Awards…and other occasional awards such as the MTV Movie Awards, Grammy Awards, and ESPY Awards).
-A ranking from myself.
-The current IMDB.com ranking (and position in the top 250 or bottom 100, if applicable).

Of course, there will be some days that I'm too busy to get around to watching a movie or posting here...but I will try to make new posts as often as possible.

-JP

-MOD NOTE-

<span style='color:Red'>This thread is the property of JP and JP alone. Obviously, he has gone to alot of trouble to make a sweet thread for us to view and be informed by. Out of respect to JP and his work, only he is allowed to post in this thread. All posts made by any other user than JP will be deleted without question. Comments on his reviews can be made in a seperate thread in this forum called "Jp's Movie Review Comments". Repeat offenders will be dealt with harshly. Thank you</span>

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Hable con ella (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLQW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Pedro Almodovar, the acclaimed Spanish director, created what some are calling a masterpiece in "Talk to Her." This film is the tale of two men who share a unique friendship while caring for the women they love...both of whom are comatose.

Comments: This movie, told through flashbacks and flash forwards...has it's fair share of twists, a superb score, great direction, and impressive acting. It's subtly satirical in it's views on gender roles and relationships. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and will recommend it to anyone. It deserves every bit of acclaim it's gotten.

The track is Spanish, so if you're not a fan of subtitles, this isn't the movie for you. Though, you should trust me when I say that you shouldn't let that be the reason you miss out on a very impressive film.

Awards & Nominations:
2003 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Pedro Almodovar)
2003 Golden Globe - Best Foreign Language Film

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.2/10 (Top 250 - #131)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Natural Born Killers (1994):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003BDXG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This movie tells the tale of a couple of lovers (played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) who have lived through traumatic childhoods...and go on to become mass murderers. Their actions are glorified by the mass media, and they become icons of sorts.

Comments: Writing credits to Quentin Tarantino. Directed by Oliver Stone. Starring Woody Harrelson. Maybe I went into this movie with unrealistic expectations...but I was very, very disappointed. It’s just...with credits like those, this movie should have been echelons greater than what it was. I did appreciate the satire on American culture and media obsession. I didn’t appreciate the way it was presented.

Don't get me wrong, it was decent movie...but the intense cinematography gimmicks got real old, real fast. Some parts were classic, while some parts were...dare I say, amateurish. I suppose can see how some people would love it. I can certainly see how some would hate it. Personally, I’m not on either end of the spectrum. It’s a movie that you should definitely see so you can form your own opinion, but do yourself a favor and go in with low expectations.

Awards & Nominations:
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director
1995 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Kiss (Lewis/ Harrelson)
1995 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best On-Screen Duo (Lewis/Harrelson)

JP’s Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Life of David Gale (2003)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLZN.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A professor and capital punishment abolitionist (Kevin Spacey) finds himself on death row for the rape and murder of a colleague. Days before his execution, he tells a reporter (Kate Winslet) his story through a series of flashbacks, and she sets out to find the truth about what really happened.

Comments: Blah. This is a fool's idea of a deep movie. My suggestion: if you have a chance to see this movie...don't. It's full of clichés, it has numerous plot holes "covered up" with sloppy filler, it's agenda-driven, and it's "monumental twists" are as telegraphed as they come. Even Kevin Spacey couldn't save this script. Roger Ebert gave it zero stars, only the third time in his long career he's given a film such a low rating. I won't be that hard on it, since it at least attempted to be clever. It just came up very, very short.

JP's Rating: 4.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Go (1999)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0767835093.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The tale of a wild night in the life of a drug dealer, a group of four buddies on a road trip to Las Vegas, a pair of guy friends, and three teenage coworkers. Drugs, guns, and car chases...but don't be fooled, this is not a typical Hollywood flic.

Comments: I enjoyed it. If you were to imagine an MTV-ish Pulp Fiction, you'd end up with something quite similar to Go. Several subplots are intertwined to form one fast-paced, character-driven movie. The dialogue, while a level below Tarantino's films, is still on key. I wouldn't say it's a great movie, but it's a good one, and it's certainly worth seeing.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

American Beauty (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CWL6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: On the outside, he's living a normal, happy existence. However, from his marriage to his career, Lester's life is falling apart. His wife, Carolyn, and his daughter, Jane, both seem to hate him. He is a loser on a one-way street to depression. However, when he becomes infatuated with one of Jane's school friends, things start to turn around. Meanwhile, Jane is developing a blossoming relationship with a reserved boy next door.

Comments: Amazing movie. Kevin Spacey's acting is great...but, surprisingly, every single one of the supporting actors and actresses kept up with him. Beautifully filmed, and it has an absolutely amazing script. This movie isn't full of twists and turns, because it doesn't need to be. This movie isn't full of car chases and explosions, because it doesn't need to be. This film offers something most of today's movies don't: simple elegance, without clichés and dumbed-down Hollywood dialogue.

I don't see movies unless I buy the DVD. I rarely buy DVD's unless I find them in pawn shops (about a third of the price, so unless it's a special occasion, I just can't bring myself to buy movies new). I'm kicking myself for not buying this until today. If you haven't seen this movie, see it. If you have seen it, see it again. And again.

Awards & Nominations:
2000 Academy Award - Best Picture
2000 Academy Award - Best Director (Sam Mendes)
2000 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
2000 Academy Award - Best Actor (Kevin Spacey)
2000 Academy Award - Best Cinematography
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actress (Annette Bening)
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Score
2000 Golden Globe - Best Picture, Drama
2000 Golden Globe - Best Director (Sam Mendes)
2000 Golden Globe - Best Original Screenplay
2000 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Score
2000 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (Kevin Spacey)
2000 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actress (Annette Bening)
2001 Grammy - Best Score
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Soundtrack Album
2000 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Movie
2000 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Breakthrough Male Performance (Wes Bentley)

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.5/10 (Top 250 - #30)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Thirteen Conversations About One Thing (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006L927.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An aging professor decides to change his life. A young cleaning woman awaits a miracle. A lawyer's happy existence is thrown into disarray. A businessman deals with his mundane life and troubled, estranged son. A woman tries to cope with the infidelity of her husband. These people's lives are intertwined as they all search for the answers to some of life's most fundamental philosophical questions: Is there true happiness and order in this world, and if so, how does one obtain it?

Comments: If you expect closure in a movie, this isn't the film for you. Thirteen Conversations was extremely true to life, even if it meant leaving some things unanswered. It asks some of life's fundamental questions, and being a fan of all things philosophical, I very much appreciated that. Alan Arkin and Matthew McConaughey serve up impressive performances. The film's structure was impressive. The characters were well drawn.

However, it wasn't all good. Moved quite slowly at times. I also anticipated a significant twist or two that never came, though that's my own fault and I can't really hold it against the film. As I said, I enjoyed the philosophical points 'Thirteen Conversations' tried to make. However, the movie kind of hits you in the face with it's dialogue at times, rather than being subtle about any underlying meaning. That, I didn't appreciate, as I like directors and writers that give the audience a bit of credit and allow them to infer what's being said.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie, and recommend it. However, don't go in expecting a masterpiece...and if you have a problem with unresolved questions, or a film that doesn't take you to some monumental conclusion before rolling end credits...'Thirteen Conversations' probably isn't for you.

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

About Schmidt (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLSK.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Warren Schmidt is forced into retirement, and seems to be facing a rather ambiguous, uneventful future. On the road to self-discovery, and surrounded by people he doesn't mesh with, Schmidt sponsors a Tanzanian child for $22 a month, and tries to come to terms with his daughter's upcoming marriage to a man he doesn't particularly care for.

Comments: This movie doesn't really fit into any genre. It's a dramedy, if anything. I rather enjoyed it. Jack Nicholson turns in a wonderfully convincing performance. This movie has great dialogue...including lots of subtle humor and dry wit that had me laughing out loud on a few different occasions. Nice direction, decent editing, and the bits of beautiful cinematography here and there set an awesome tone for the movie.

One negative, in the eyes of some, is that this was a rather slow moving film. A lot of people might find it boring, because it tends to drag on at a relatively sluggish pace...showing everyday people doing everyday things. Personally, that's what I liked most about this movie. I loved the way it just sort of crept along...because it helps the audience relate to the pace of our 66-year old protagonist.

When it's all said and done...I think the most redeeming thing about this film is how true to life it is. If you're not turned off by a slow paced film, I recommend it.

Awards & Nominations:
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (Jack Nicholson)
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Kathy Bates)
2002 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d’Or
2003 Golden Globe - Best Actor (Jack Nicholson)
2003 Golden Globe - Best Screenplay
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Alexander Payne)
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Kathy Bates)

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Léon: The Professional (1994):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YYDI.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Léon was the perfect assassin. Then, one day, an innocent twelve year old girl knocked on his door. They form a bond as he reluctantly agrees to teach her how to hunt down and assassinate the men that killed her family.

Comments: A couple of days ago, I picked this up in a pawn shop for seven bucks. It's the American version, not the uncut international version...but, for seven dollars, I wasn't going to be too picky. It was a very good movie. The onscreen chemistry between Natalie Portman and Jean Reno is astounding. The camerawork is impressive. The story is classic. This movie has restored my faith in the action genre. Don't be fooled, though, there's much more to this movie than just action.

That said, my suggestion is that you not see this particular movie. Not that you shouldn't see it at all, you just shouldn't see the American version. If you're going to rent it or buy it, pick up the uncut international version. It's titled "Léon." About 25 minutes of additional footage is included...and the characters (and their bond) are much more drawn out than in the American version. This movie still gets a pretty high ranking, because it was very good. However, "Léon" is a longer, better version of the same movie. So, if you think this would be your type of movie, be sure to pick that up instead of "The Professional."

JP's Rating: 8.0/10 (Léon: 9/10)
IMDB.com Rating: 8.4/10 (Top 250 - #63)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007CVTH.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An FBI agent teams up with his adversary, a rogue government agent, to do battle against a common enemy who has developed a "micro-device" that can be injected into victims in order to kill them at will.

Comments: Wow. I think this movie is the silver screen adaptation of "Hollywood Cliches for Dummies." Seriously, give Antonio Banderas a light saber and a hockey mask, and you've got just about everything covered. The action, which took up about 80 of this film's 95 minutes, was beyond unrealistic (a motorcycle chase at approximately 35mph, heroes that apparently can't be hit by bullets and have no qualms about standing in the middle of an explosion, and magazines that hold at least 94,007 bullets). The dialogue was probably ripped off from an undergrad film student, and even he is likely on the brink of dropping out of his community college because he can't maintain a 1.0 gpa. The direction was horrible. The editing was wretched (in nearly every scene, you had to find out where you were and why you were there). Just...wow.

And the characters. My God. I had actually watched 10-15 minutes of this movie before, and didn't realize it tonight until I got back to that scene. That's how forgettable the characters are. And who in the hell was in charge of casting for this movie, Helen Keller? Explain to me how Antonio Banderas and Talisa Soto have a kid that's whiter than Christina Ricci? Speaking of Talisa Soto...she's the only reason this movie walked away with a ranking higher than "Horseshit/10." Oh, no, not for her acting. I have a coffee table that could have done a better acting job than she did. No, she helps this movie's ranking because she is oh so fine.

Quite possibly one of the 10 worst films I have ever seen. Please, please do yourself a favor and don't watch this movie. It's not even good for a laugh. If there are no other alternatives, might I recommend you chew glass for an hour and a half. Trust me, in retrospect, it sounds much more appealing than another viewing of this seventy MILLION dollar cinematic waste.

...my head hurts. Un-fucking-believable.

Awards & Nominations:
#95 - IMDB's bottom 100 films

JP's Rating: 2.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 3.5/10 (Bottom 100 - #95)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Godfather (1972):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001NBNB6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Mafia Don Vito Corleone has political and police connections throughout 1940's New York. He is content with the money he is making via gambling and personal connections. Thus, when he is asked by another Mafia family to go against his morals and offer his connections to assist in drug running, he refuses. What follows is a tale of violence, revenge, attrition, family, love, hate, and greed.

Comments: The acting in this movie is absolutely phenomonal. The cast is littered with stars, from Marlon Brando to Al Pacino, Robert Duvall to James Caan. The storyline is spectacular, featuring some of the most famous (and infamous) characters in the history of cinema. It is authentic to its time setting. The cinematography and dialogue give us some of the most memorable scenes in film history. Spectacular direction and editing. Even the musical score is classic.

Not many movies are so masterful that they come close to perfection. This movie is one that does. If you've never seen it, do so immediately. Expect reviews of parts II and III in a few days.

Awards & Nominations:
1973 Academy Award - Best Actor (Marlon Brando)
1973 Academy Award - Best Picture
1973 Academy Award - Best Screenplay
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (James Caan)
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Al Pacino)
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Robert Duvall)
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Costume Design
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Francis Ford Coppola)
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Score
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1973 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
1973 Golden Globe - Best Picture, Drama
1973 Golden Globe - Best Actor, Drama (Marlon Brando)
1973 Golden Globe - Best Director (Francis Ford Coppola)
1973 Golden Globe - Best Original Score
1973 Golden Globe - Best Screenplay
1973 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor, Drama (Al Pacino)
1973 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (James Caan)
1973 Grammy - Best Original Score

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 9.0/10 (Top 250 - #1)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Office Space (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305508550.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Peter hates his job. Every day is worse than the day before it. So, he gets hypnotherapy in an attempt to help himself. Instead, he is locked in a state of laid-back apathy. Meanwhile, two of his friends, Samir and Michael, are being laid off by company consultants. The three decide to get rich by planting a virus in the company's computer system.

Comments: For once, my comments will deem direction, editing, acting, cinematography, and everything else that points toward the quality of a film totally irrelevant. This movie is spectacular if only for it's content. 'Office Space' is easily one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Having worked in an office building at one time, I can tell you that the humor is on point. While it probably could have done much more with the subject matter, I still highly recommend it.

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Donnie Brasco (1997):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004XPPB.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An aging mobster named Lefty takes a young gun under his wing, not knowing that he's actually an undercover FBI agent. What ensues is a true story of friendship and violence as 'Donnie' delves deeper and deeper into his undercover role, mixing his job with his reality.

Comments: Come on. Do you really think it's possible to give Johnny Depp and Al Pacino a captivating script based on a true story, and end up with anything less than an awesome final product? I won't even comment on the acting. With those two headlining alongside one another, you go in expecting greatness. Both deliver. Their onscreen chemistry is something to behold.

Maybe I'm a sucker for a true story, but I really enjoyed this movie...on a comparable level to my enjoyment of Fargo. After watching The Godfather earlier in the afternoon, I wasn't sure if another mob movie could even try to follow it. Well, this one did a fine job. I'd check it out if I were you.

Awards & Nominations:
1998 Acadamy Award Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Cradle 2 The Grave (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009Q98J.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A jewel thief's daughter is kidnapped after he steals 50 prized black diamonds, which aren't what they seem. The diamonds change hands a few more times, and the thief is forced to team up with a Taiwanese special agent to find the stones, and his daughter.

Comments: Seriously...is it a requirement for every big budget action film have the same overused dialogue? As usual, poor writing. DMX overacted his part. The action scenes were pretty decent, except for the final fight scenes, which seemed a bit too choreographed. The direction, cinematography, and editing were all typical for a big budget action film. The plot was a bit of a stretch, and it played out along the typical 'good guy vs. bad guy' lines. Nothing special, there. There were quite a handful of plot holes that went unexplained...and that always catches my attention and lowers my impression of a film. The highlight for me was the film's music, simply because I like DMX.

In short...it's nothing I haven't seen before. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time with it unless you're just a big fan of Jet Li or one of his castmates.

Awards & Nominations:
2003 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Fight (Jet Li vs. Ultimate Fighters)

JP's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMYD.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A group of quirky characters are worried that their local gym, Average Joe's, is going to be bought out by a corporate health-fitness chain. In order to raise the money that will keep the gym running...they enter a Las Vegas dodgeball tournament that's paying out a $50,000 grand prize. The catch? None of them have ever played the game.

Comments: Let me start by saying that I laughed a handful of times in this movie. Once or twice because of the dialogue, the rest of the times because people were getting hit about the face and testicles with various objects, and that's always funny. Beyond the occasional laugh, though...this movie doesn't offer much. Stiller simply put his Zoolander character in a different outfit for this movie. Aside from Stiller and Rip Horn, all of the actors are bland, at best, in their performances. The dialogue, while quite funny at points, can also seem overplayed and forced from time to time.

All in all, I was pretty disappointed. Let's see. A man needs money to save something he holds dear to him. He partakes in a sport that he knows nothing about, with hopes he'll make the money he needs. Along the way, he takes on a rival who isn't the sharpest of people. He and this fellow are not only rivals in the sport, but they are both going after the same girl. Since he's new to the sport, he receives the help of a mentor who is one of the sport's greats.

Am I talking about Dodgeball? Well, I suppose I could be...but I was actually talking about Happy Gilmore. In an effort to keep from posting spoilers...I'll let those of you who have seen it ponder all of the other similarities (and there are many, many more). Honestly, I hope the writers of Happy Gilmore are receiving royalties.

I suppose Dodgeball is worth seeing, even if only for a couple of laughs (assuming you didn't already use them up watching Happy Gilmore and Zoolander).

Awards & Nominations:
2004 ESPY Nomination - Best Sports Movie

JP's Ranking: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Private Parts (1997):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305222908.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Having always wanted to be a disc-jockey, Howard Stern works his way painfully from radio at his 1970's college to a Detroit station. It is with a move to Washington that he hits on an outrageous off-the-wall style that catches audience attention. Despite his on-air blue talk, at home he is a loving husband. He needs all the support he can get when he joins NBC in New York and comes up against a very different vision of radio.

Comments: This is going to be a short review. It's hard to review a movie of this sort...because it's kind of like a documentary. The acting, the dialogue...isn't really all that fictional (and is certainly not much of a stretch for our main characters). However, even the first half hour or so, documenting Stern's youth and adolescence, was quite captivating. I rather enjoyed this movie. It was a good autobiographical tale, very believable. At times you'd swear you were just following Howard Stern around as he did his thing. The voice over was quite good, and I liked the movie's ending. All in all, it’s a solid film.

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

21 Grams (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001CNRRU.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This is the story of a mathematician with failing health who is lovelessly married to an English woman (Sean Penn), a happily married suburban housewife who is mother to two young girls (Naomi Watts), and an ex-con with a wife, two kids, and a newfound faith (Benicio Del Toro). The three are linked together by a tragic accident that will forever change their lives.

Comments: This is a captivating character study, told in a non-linear style. This film feels more "real" than it does "movie." Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu has secured his spot among my list of favorite filmmakers. I adored his only other full-length film, Amores Perros, and was just as blown away by 21 Grams. Great, great director. Hopefully he's got some variation in his talent. If he's not totally one-dimensional, he's got a very bright future.

About this movie itself...there is much more to it than good direction and cinematography. The acting is absolutely brilliant. The story, and it's characters, are captivating and heartfelt. The non-linear editing is done well...leaves you confused at points, but comes together quite nicely. The pacing is strong. All in all it's just a very good movie. I really enjoyed it.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Awards Nomination - Best Actress (Naomi Watts)
2004 Academy Awards Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Benicio Del Toro)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #188)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Swimming Pool (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMIJ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Sarah, a famous British mystery writer, goes to her publisher's home in the south of France to begin work on her new novel. However, late one night, the publisher's sexy, free-spirited French daughter shows up unannounced. Their interaction sets off some touchy dynamics.

Comments: Swimming Pool turned out to be a bit of a mindfuck. The last five minutes of this film sent me on a path of personal interpretation, research, and finally, a logical conclusion. That alone makes this movie one that will stand out among the dozens I have watched in the past couple of months.

Aside from that, the movie isn't too stellar. The acting, though decent, isn't anything to be exalted. The story itself is slow-paced at the start, though it eventually picks up a bit. I do feel that American critics were totally incorrect in describing this as "a thriller." This is certainly a character driven movie, and they are, for the most part, very well drawn. All in all, last five minutes notwithstanding, this film is nothing too terribly special. Alas, I'm a sucker for movies that make me think, and those last five minutes give new meaning to the rest of the film...so for that reason alone, Swimming Pool gets a...

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d'Or

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Memento (2000):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CXZ4.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Leonard Shelby took a blow to the head, leaving him with no ability to form new long-term memories. With the assistance of Polaroid photos, tattoos, and hand-written notes...Shelby tries to track down the man that killed his wife and took away his ability to live a normal life.

Comments: This is one of my all-time favorite movies. The performances by Guy Pearce and Joe Pantoliano are stellar. The nonlinear editing actually serves a purpose, and is done masterfully. The story is original. The characters are intriguing, to say the least. The twists (most of which are due to the editing) are well done. The pacing is good. The direction and cinematography are impressive. The voice-overs, even the wardrobes, are commendable. I really can't think of one thing that I didn't like about this movie. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out.

Awards & Nominations:
2001 Sundance Film Festival - Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award
2001 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize (Best Picture)
2002 Academy Awards Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2002 Academy Awards Nomination - Best Editing
2002 Golden Globes Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.7/10 (Top 250 - #19)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Powder (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6304011431.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When a sheriff investigates the death of an elderly farmer, he finds a teenage grandson living in the basement. "Powder," as he's called, has learned everything he knows through books, having never left the farm. He's sent to a state home for boys where, due to his unique appearance and unusual abilities, he has a hard time fitting in.

Comments: The message of the movie was a good one, because it rings true. Hate and pain does run rampant in our world, and it's good to see a film that addresses this head on, rather than taking a typical feel-good approach. I also liked Sean Patrick Flanery's character (and his acting job). However, I felt like Victor Salva was trying too hard to convey the idea that this was a beautiful character. By Jeff Goldblum's final monologue, I wanted to scream "I get the idea already, mate. He's beautiful." I think a more subtle approach would have worked much better.

The movie itself was too predictable. Let's take a sheltered kid who's different from everyone, and put him in a school with a bunch of rednecks. He will fit in with only a small number of people, including, somehow, a girl who's beautiful (though not in the traditional sense). Can we say recycled? I've seen it before, let's mix things up a little.

The direction was decent, though I have a hard time enjoying anything by Victor Salva. Knowing his past, the underlying homoerotic subtext in his films (which Powder certainly had) makes them quite uncomfortable to watch at times. It was a decent movie...but I don't think it was worth my taking the time to write this long of a review. So, I'm going to stop right there.

Awards & Nominations:
1996 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Breakthrough Performance (Sean Patrick Flanery)

JP's Rating: 5.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Human Nature (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000714E6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An obsessive scientist becomes involved with a female naturalist. One day they discover a man who was raised in the wild. They take him into captivity, and teach him the in's and out's of civilized life. What ensues is a power struggle, and a rather unusual love triangle.

Comments: I went in with relatively high expectations. I was a bit disappointed, but still somewhat pleased. I am a huge fan of Charlie Kaufman's other works (namely, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich), so I decided to give this comedy a try. While there is certainly a tone of Kaufman in this story...it just doesn't live up to his other works.

Ignoring the fact that I adore the writer, the movie is pretty okay. It's a great philosophical satire on our society's conflicting emphasis on both nature and cultured civilization. I love the way this film exposes the perversities of the human mind...because I've always advocated the idea that we shouldn't be ashamed of our own instinctual drives.

Aside from the premise, which we can thank Kaufman for...this film doesn't offer much else. Not much in the way of direction, and only occasional hints of above-average acting. If you're a fan of Kaufman's work, you might want to check it out, if only to see the final product of one of his ideas being turned into a quirky comedy. If you're looking for a traditional comedy, you'll probably want to pass on Human Nature.

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.1/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Buffalo `66:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0783236476.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Before being incarcerated for five years, Billy Brown told his parents he was married and successful. Shortly after being released, and desperate to find a restroom, Billy stumbles into a dance studio. While there, he proceeds to kidnap a dance student named Layla, with the intention of taking her home to Mom and Dad, and passing her off as his wife.

Comments: I loved this movie. The direction and cinematography are outstanding...easily the film's high point. The camera angles. The color schemes. The variation (from inset video, to still photography, to a great climactic scene of frozen camerawork). Every bit of the cinematography in this film is great, and when combined, the techniques provide a refreshing breath of originality. The acting is great. Christina Ricci is as believable as I've ever seen her. Vincent Gallo is equally impressive as the leading man in the script that he wrote. The rest of the cast is also impressive...from Anjelica Huston as the mother, all the way down to Rosanna Arquette in a small role as an ex-love interest. Perhaps the acting is strong because the performers had a lot to work with. The script is great, with amazing dialogue and a very original story that manages to defy the cliches of typical kidnapping storylines.

Vincent Gallo hit a homerun here, writing, directing, starring in, and composing the score for one of the most original films I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. Not to mention, Christina Ricci is absolutely adorable throughout. I literally enjoyed every bit of this film, from opening credits to end credits...and continue to do so with multiple viewings. Buffalo `66 is very underrated (outside of it's growing cult following), and comes very highly recommended. One of my top 5 favorite films of all time. See it now. Thank me later.

Awards & Nominations:
1998 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Piano (1993):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0784011176.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Set in the nineteenth century, a mute woman takes her daughter and her beloved piano with her to New Zealand, where an arranged marriage awaits. Her new husband sells her piano to a neighbor, George. George tells her that she can earn back her piano by giving him lessons, but only with certain other conditions attached. As the lessons go on, her relationship with George begins to evolve.

Comments: This was a good movie...though I expected a bit more for some reason. It won dozens of awards, and it was nominated for eight Oscars and six Golden Globes. With all of that acclaim, I must say that for the first half hour or so, I was quite bored. However, once you become attached to the characters, it becomes a very powerful film. The roles were very well acted (Holly Hunter was brilliant).

This was written and directed by a female, and it shows. All in all, it's a beautiful film that received many accolades. It won't make my list of favorites, but it's still worth seeing if you get around to it.

Awards & Nominations:
1993 Cannes Film Festival - Best Actress (Holly Hunter)
1993 Cannes Film Festival - Palm d'Or
1994 Academy Award - Best Actress (Holly Hunter)
1994 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actress (Anna Paquin)
1994 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
1994 Academy Award Nomination - Best Cinematography
1994 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Jane Campion)
1994 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
1994 Academy Award Nomination - Best Costume Design
1994 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1994 Golden Globe - Best Actress (Holly Hunter)
1994 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Jane Campion)
1994 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
1994 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Anna Paquin)
1994 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Score
1994 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Det Sjunde Inseglet (1957):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305174083.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: A knight and his squire have just returned from the crusades. Along the way, the knight is met by death, who tells him it's his time to go. The knight challenges death to a game of chess. As they play, the knight searches for true meaning in his life and religion...while the people around him cope with the turmoil of the black plague.

Comments: Spectacular movie. Ingmar Bergman is one of the most respected and accomplished filmmakers of all time. This movie is widely accepted as being his masterpiece...that one work that other filmmakers use as inspiration, and serves as a measuring bar for the rest of the filmmakers career. Considering Bergman's other great films...films that are noteworthy in nearly every aspect, I feel that this notation speaks volumes about the timeless greatness of The Seventh Seal.

The symbolism and imagery in this film are amazing. The dialogue is rich with thought-provoking religious, philosophical, and societal questions. I enjoyed the pace of the film...and for an older movie (released to the US in 1957), the original subtitles weren't too terribly difficult to follow. The direction, well, it was done by Ingmar Bergman...what more do I have to say? The acting was great. The final scenes are spectacular, and burn themselves a permanent spot in the viewer's memory. All in all, it's just a wonderful movie that spans time like no other.

If you're a fan of classics or foreign films, this is a must-see. If you're not, well, you should still check it out...because it is a truly remarkable piece of work. There has never been another movie like The Seventh Seal...and I doubt there ever will be. This is a once in a lifetime masterpiece that every movie-goer must view at least once.

Awards & Nominations:
1957 Cannes Film Festival - Jury Special Prize (Ingmar Bergman)

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.4/10 (Top 250 - #94)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Wonderland (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00014K58W.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: On the afternoon of July 1, 1981, Los Angeles police responded to a distress call at 8763 Wonderland Avenue and discovered a grisly quadruple homicide. The police investigation that followed uncovered two versions of the events leading up to the brutal murders -- both involving legendary porn actor John Holmes.

Comments: Just like I said in my review for Donnie Brasco...I'm a sucker for a true story. Give me a good story, and I'll call it a good movie. Tell me it actually happened, and I'll call it a great movie. There's just something about knowing that what I'm watching actually occurred that peaks my interest. However, this movie offers more than a captivating true story. It also has spectacular editing and direction, and wonderful performances by everyone involved. If you enjoy a good, gritty, true story...you definitely need to check out this movie.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Hot Water (1924):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002CHIEM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A chronicle of events in the day of a recently married man who's in-laws come to town for a visit. Adventures include a ride in a new car, a drunken dinner, and panic after the man is certain he's accidentally killed his mother-in-law by chloroforming her.

Comments: True, slapstick comedy. Made in 1924, this silent film accomplishes what most modern comedies can't. Harold Lloyd was a master of the silver screen in the silent-film era...though he's often overshadowed by the great Charlie Chaplain. This film satires everything from married life to our society's consumerism and struggle to keep up with the newest technological advances. This film is strewn with bits of great prop, situational, and literal comedy. Wonderful, light-hearted movie. As far as I know, there isn't a Harold Lloyd set out on DVD. Your only way of seeing this short film would be to pick up the VHS, or keep an eye out for an airing on TCM. Trust me, though, when I say that you'll be glad you went to the trouble of seeing it.

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Boondock Saints (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005PJ8R.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A pair of popular, local Irish brothers kill two Russian wiseguys in self defense. In turn, they're played up by the media as being "Saints." One night, both awake from a sleep with the same thought in mind...that they must continue to carry out God's will and rid the world of evil. As they go on a killing spree targeting the scum of Boston, they are joined by an unorthodox friend, an FBI agent is hot on their tail, and a mafia hitman tries to do away with them.

Comments: I've seen this movie a few times, and I've always enjoyed it. The characters are, in my opinion, some of the most badass characters I've ever seen. However, as over-the-top their actions might be...they've still got a touch of realism in both persona and dialogue.

I thought that, for the most part, the acting was impressive. The direction was nothing spectacular, but wasn't too shabby either. The editing was great (I loved the way the events were told in an A, B, D, C fashion, saving the action for last). Not all is good, though. As I mentioned before, the movie can seem a bit overblown...though, from time to time, it makes fun of itself for this very quirk. There are also quite a few scenes that are very similar to hit movies of the past...which makes you wonder if it's tribute or plagiarism from this first time writer/director.

All in all, though, this is worth a watch. It never fails to entertain me.

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Kid Stays in the Picture (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009PY57.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This documentary tells the story of producer and studio executive Robert Evans...from his unexpected break into show business to his downward spiral through the 80's.

Comments: This was one hell of a documentary. The narraration by Evans is extremely captivating. You can't help but be drawn into his story. This poetic documentary combines archive behind the scenes footage, clips from movies, still photos, and beautiful original cinematography. The frame by frame manipulation of the still photographs is astounding. The story, though a bit glorified, is a good one.

I really enjoyed it, and will watch it again soon. I know it's quite cheap in the used DVD section at Blockbuster (less than ten dollars) so if you're a DVD buyer, I'd recommend it to you. If not, it's still worth a rent sometime (or, you can probably catch it on cable or a movie channel).

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Deer Hunter (1978):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/630018627X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Mike, Nick, and Steve are three friends, living in a small steel town in Pennsylvania. They all attend Steve's wedding...and the after party doubles as a going away party, for they are leaving the next day for Vietnam. This in depth character study shows the woes of war, and how it forever changes the lives of those involved.

Comments: As I sat down to watch it, I was wary of the 3:03:00 length. Then, I was treated to a couple of very drawn out opening scenes (the wedding scene in particular). Then, the movie changed topic and tempo. By the end credits, I totally understood the reasoning behind the lengthy opening scenes. If you see this movie (and you must see this movie), don't be discouraged by the slow beginning.

The movie itself...is very, very powerful. The acting is superb, and the screenplay is just, wow. One of my qualms is the film's editing (though, it did win a best editing oscar, somehow). Some scenes drag on for longer than they need to. Some things are left untold, to the point that you're left wondering "wait, where am I? Oh, okay, I'm here." Another complaint is that there are one or two plausibility problems, which typically lower my opinion of a film greatly. This movie is a definite exception, though.

All in all, it's a classic that you must see. I've noticed that I've been giving a hell of a lot of high scores here lately. Of the 9 films I've reviewed on this page, only one has gotten lower than a 7.0. Well, The Deer Hunter would be the worst possible place to start giving low scores. Very, very powerful film that everyone should see at least once.

Awards & Nominations:
1979 Academy Award - Best Picture
1979 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actor (Christopher Walken)
1979 Academy Award - Best Director (Michael Cimino)
1979 Academy Award - Best Editing
1979 Academy Award - Best Sound
1979 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (Robert De Niro)
1979 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Meryl Streep)
1979 Academy Award Nomination - Best Cinematography
1979 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
1979 Golden Globe - Best Director (Michael Cimino)
1979 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Motion Picture, Drama
1979 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (Robert De Niro)
1979 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Christopher Walken)
1979 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Meryl Streep)
1979 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.1/10 (Top 250 - #118)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Love Actually (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMFQ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Tells the stories of eight different (very different) couples, all living in England, who deal with their love lives during the frantic month and a half before Christmas.

Comments: While the movie didn't completely suck, it could have been a lot better. I'm not a huge fan of romantic comedies, but I am a fan of movies that tell numerous stories at one time. This movie, however, used that technique against me. For the last 20 minutes or so, I was just wondering when the movie would end. Near the end, the stories were dragging...and the worst part is that it wasn't necessary. You're telling the stories of eight groups of people. You shouldn't have to use ploys to make the movie two hours long (ie: rather than settling this couple's issue here, he's going to miss her by seconds and have to track her down at the airport).

That's my only major complaint. I enjoyed a lot of the subtle humor. I enjoyed the performances by Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, and Liam Neeson (Alan Rickman turned in a nice performance, also). I just couldn't stand the way the story dragged on, and didn't really even need to. There should have been more meat in the middle, and a hell of a lot less filler at the end. If you're a fan of romantic comedies, you'll probably enjoy this movie. Personally, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it, but the choice is yours.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

American Splendor (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000U0X20.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This film takes a look at the life of comic book writer, and average joe, Harvey Pekar. I could go further into detail about his life, and what is chronicled...but you'd be better off just seeing the picture. This is the story of Harvey Pekar. That's all the plot there is to this film...and that's about all you need to know here.

Comments: I thought this movie was terriffic. It defies all genres. It's part documentary, part drama, and part animation. The best part? It was all magnificently done. There were three or four scenes that made me think, "damn, that was brilliant. I wouldn't have thought to do that." The direction and editing are just spectacular.

The acting was superb. I mean, I seriously walked away from this film with a new appreciation for acting skills. Paul Giamatti and Judah Friedlander blew me away with their performances, and Hope Davis didn't do too shabby of a job, either. Good acting, good direction, a good script/story...but the most impressive thing is the film's style. Hands down. If only for that, you should see this movie.

Awards & Nominations:
2003 Cannes Film Festival - International Critics Award
2003 Sundance Film Festival - Grand Jury Prize, Drama (Best Picture)
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Screenplay
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Hope Davis)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Amélie (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000640VO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Amélie Poulain, a young, introverted waitress in Paris, decides one day that her new goal is to do mischievous little things in an attempt to make other people happy. The only question is, can she make herself happy along the way?

Comments: I loved this movie. Now, I've seen hundreds upon hundreds of movies. That said, I don't think there's been one film yet that has put me in such a good mood. This is easily the best feel-good film I've ever seen, and I don't even particularly like feel-good movies. Had any actress other than Audrey Tautou been cast for the title role, the film wouldn't have come out anywhere near as great as it did. It's an overused line, but I really do feel she was born to play this role.

Aside from the story and acting...the direction was good, as was the pacing. The cinematography was simply outstanding. Plenty of original, quirky, out of the ordinary gimmicks were used...and not one of them seemed forced or out of place. Not to mention the vibrant colors, which totally enhanced the mood of the film. Amélie Tautou has taken her spot among my all-time favorite movie characters. I adored this movie, and will recommend it to anyone who isn't scared off by subtitles.

Awards & Nominations:
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Foreign Film
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Art Direction/Set Direction
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Cinematography
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Foreign Language Film
Numerous European awards and nominations, including:
-César Awards (France): Four awards on thirteen nominations
-European Film Awards: Four awards on five nominations

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.7/10 (Top 250 - #25)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Spiderman 2 (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMQU.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Peter Parker is plagued by numerous real-life problems as Spiderman confronts Dr. Otto Octavius...who becomes better known as Dr. Octopus when his body becomes attached to a powerful, highly-advanced, 4-armed machine.

Comments: I thought it was okay, but I think the hype has snowballed beyond the realm of realism. This film deserves good reviews...but it's not worthy of being the fastest movie to ever hit $200 million in the box office. Overall, the acting is pretty good...though there are a few scenes where it's very average. The dialogue is often overblown (understanding it's keeping with the comic book feel, but I felt even that corny comic book angle couldn't condone some of the cheesy lines and scenes that I was subjected to). The special effects are, for the most part, quite awesome...though the scene with the helicopters didn't do it for me.

I appreciate it as a nice, entertaining movie (the elevator scene was greatness) that did a good job of sticking to the comic story...but beyond that, there were too many things that irked me for me to buy into all of the hype. Better than the first, one of the best comic movies to date...but too many scenes made me roll my eyes. It's likely to entertain any kind of viewer, so I'd recommend it to you. Just don't go in expecting a movie that will retain it's hyped up appreciation for more than a few months.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #216)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

From Dusk Til Dawn (1996):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1558908455.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The plot doesn't matter.

Comments: My comments don't matter, either.

None of this review matters. The only thing that matters is that you see this movie. One requirement, though. Don't read up on the movie before watching it. Don't ask friends what they thought. Don't even look at the back of the fucking DVD cover when picking up the rental box (that is, if you can't catch it on a movie channel like HBO, where it's frequently aired). Do as I did, and go into this moving not at all knowing what to expect. You'll be glad you did. It will make the movie echelons better than had you heard about it beforehand. I know that this last paragraph has made you curious...and you'll be very tempted to read up on it to see exactly what it is I'm talking about. Well, don't. At all. Just go get the movie, and watch it.

On to my normal comments about the film's quality. Good acting (George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis, Salma Hayek, and Quentin Tarantino headline). Great direction (by Robert Rodriguez, a man who demands the ability to get his hands wet in producing, and even working the cameras, when he agrees to direct a picture. He uses the same hands on approach in all of his films, including Desperado). Stellar screenplay (which was written by Quentin Tarantino...need I say more?).

That's all I'll tell you. That the acting was good, the direction was great, the screenplay was stellar...and that you'll ruin the entire experience if you even consider reading up on this movie before seeing it. Now that you've taken the time to read this unhelpful review...go see the movie.

Awards & Nominations:
1996 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Breakthrough Performance (George Clooney)

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Eurotrip (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001XWV12.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: After graduating, and being dumped by his girlfriend, Scotty's German pen pal suggests they meet. Initially freaked out, Scotty eventually decides to be spontaneous...and he and some friends set out on a trip to Europe.

Comments: I was disappointed. I really didn't even find it all that funny. Don't get me wrong, I laughed out loud a handful of times...but for the most part it wasn't anywhere near on par with other movies in this genre of comedy (Old School, the American Pie series, and even Out Cold).

There were a couple of refreshing, unique bits of editing in this movie...which was a surprise in this type of film. Aside from that, I won't offer any of my typical quality of film, editing, and cinematography comments...since this just isn't that type of movie. More informative to the people who might want to see this: the characters, for the most part, aren't memorable. The script is tied together by some really, really stretched coincidences. The humor is good in parts, and unbelievable lame in others. Worth seeing, as is any other movie that fits into this realm of comedy...though it doesn't hold a candle to Super Troopers, American Pie, Old School, or past greats like National Lampoon's European Vacation.

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.9/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Pulp Fiction (1994):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1558908242.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The non-linear film starts with the story of two small time crooks. It soon shifts to the story of two hit men, their well known, and very feared boss...and his shady dealings with a professional boxer.

Comments: None needed. If you've seen this, you know why I'm giving it the score I am. If you haven't seen it, I command you to go out right now, and buy the DVD. Don't rent it. Don't offer any excuses like, "I'm broke, I don't have a car, and blah blah blah." Just go buy it.

The acting is awesome (hence the three Academy Award nominations for the acting). The screenplay is spectacular…Quentin Tarantino’s best (which is saying a lot). This movie has become the ruler by which all non-linear films are judged. Go? Ripped off Pulp Fiction. Amores Perros and 21 Grams? Ripped off Pulp Fiction. Memento? Non-linear idea was stolen from Quentin Tarantino. Every good, non-linear film seems to pale in comparison to this movie.

I could go on and on. I could tell you about original tidbits in the movie (such as the way the cab scene was shot). I could tell you about the great chemistry between Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. But I won’t. You have to see this movie to appreciate it. I could rant and rave all day long about how great of a movie it is, and I wouldn’t do it a bit of justice. See it. Now.

Awards & Nominations:
1995 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (John Travolta)
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Samuel L. Jackson)
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Uma Thurman)
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Quentin Tarantino)
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
1994 Cannes Film Festival - Palm d'Or
1995 Golden Globe - Best Screenplay
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Quentin Tarantino)
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (John Travolta)
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Samuel L. Jackson)
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Uma Thurman)
1995 MTV Movie Award - Best Dance Sequence
1995 MTV Movie Award - Best Picture
1995 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Male Performance (John Travolta)
1995 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Female Performance (Uma Thurman)
1995 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Movie Song
1995 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best On-Screen Duo (Travolta/Jackson)

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.7/10 (Top 250 - #16)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Gerry (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CBY1U.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Two friends named Gerry set off on a hiking adventure. When they wander off the path, they become lost in the desert with no water, and no idea where they are.

Comments: Let me preface this with a warning. If you lack the attention span and patience to sit through a very slow-paced film…Gerry isn’t for you. However, if you can appreciate a film without much action or dialogue…you’ll find that Gerry is one of the better ones out there.

Gus Van Sant does a wonderful job of getting the viewer to relate to the characters. The acting is good, and the cinematography is spectacular. It’s a really beautiful film that only a handful of people will appreciate. Personally…I love it in hindsight. However, while watching it, I must admit that I grew tired of it’s slow pace. I’d rather there be a bit more going on in a movie. Just personal preference, I suppose. So, when considering the ranking, remember that this is only my personal opinion. If you’re more patient than I am, you might very well end up disagreeing with my relatively low ranking.

Honestly, I wish I liked this movie more than I did. I feel that, in not liking this movie solely because it’s so slow paced, I lack an appreciation for beautiful film making. Perhaps, five or ten years from now, my appreciation will grow with another viewing. As things stand, though, Gerry just doesn’t do it for me. In hindsight, it was a very beautiful and moving piece of work. While sitting through it, though, I really wanted to take a nap.

JP’s Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.1/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Goodfellas (1990):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0790729725.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The story of Henry Hill, a small time thug working with the Mafia who isn’t content with what he has. Looking for bigger and better work, he and two of his friends (and “coworkers”), Tommy and Jimmy, delve into riskier and riskier criminal situations.

Comments: Simply put, this is one of the greatest gangster movies of all time. As I’ve said repeatedly, I love true stories. This movie is based on one. I also love properly used voice-overs…and Goodfellas is a prime example of using voice-overs to give insight, while not relying on them and weakening your screenplay.

The story is an interesting one, and the acting is superb. Martin Scorsese did a wonderful job directing the movie (including a few lengthy one-shot scenes that were quite impressive). All in all, it’s a very good movie that you should definitely see.

Awards & Nominations:
1991 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actor (Joe Pesci)
1991 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Martin Scorsese)
1991 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
1991 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1991 Academy Award Nomination - Best Adapted Screenplay
1991 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Lorraine Bracco)
1991 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Joe Pesci)
1991 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Martin Scorsese)
1991 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
1991 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay
1991 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Lorraine Bracco)

JP’s Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.6/10 (Top 250 - #29)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Dazed and Confused (1993):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0783227361.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: It’s the last day of classes at a high school in a small, Texas town. The upperclassmen are hazing the incoming freshmen, and everyone is trying to get stoned, drunk, or laid…even the football players that signed a pledge not to.

Comments: Funny movie. I recommend it to those of you who are still in that rite of passage stage…partying, and the like. The acting is sometimes good, and sometimes migraine-inducing…though, it balances out to mediocre. The story is your typical one day-one night party fest, with a bit of original material mixed in (see: hazing). All in all, it’s a decent movie that’s fun to watch with friends…but it’s nowhere near tops in the party-genre.

JP’s Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Reservior Dogs (1992):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008975Z.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A group of perfect strangers are assembled to pull off the perfect crime. However, their perfect heist turns into a bloody ambush, and they realize that one of them has tipped off the police. One question remains. Who's the rat?

Comments: Another movie bearing the mark of Tarantino greatness: dialogue. Great, great dialogue. Tarantino's debut film is a good one. As in Pulp Fiction, he shows us that he can masterfully tell a story with no regard for time and chronology. I have a few qualms with this film, the main one being it's editing. It's obvious that this is a very amateur film. Tarantino demanded that some mistakes (one in particular, from the film's final scene) survive the cutting room floor. Others, however, are obviously overlooked. Aside from the editing, though...this movie is superb. Steve Buscemi turns in a spectacular performance, as do Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, and Tim Roth.

Awesome movie. Definitely worth seeing if you haven't yet.

Awards & Nominations:
1992 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.3/10 (Top 250 - #72)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Club Dread:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMDW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The workers at a babe-infested paradise island are harassed by a grisly killer, who could easily be any one of them. Is it the washed-up rock star owner? The sexy, blonde fitness instructor? Or maybe it’s the overweight masseuse? Hopefully the employees can find out in time to get off of Paradise Island alive.

Comments: I thought this movie was pretty good. Club Dread is a movie with a handful of laugh-out-loud jokes. It does a good job of poking fun at late 70’s and 80’s horror films. There was a lot of subtle humor, which I really enjoyed. I don’t doubt that upon a second viewing, I would pick up on a half a dozen jokes that I overlooked during tonight’s first viewing.

Don’t go in expecting a comedic masterpiece. I think that’s the problem a lot of people are having with this film. They’re expecting it to be on par with Broken Lizard’s earlier hit film, Super Troopers. Well, this just isn’t the same kind of comedy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good comedy…just not the same kind.

Broken Lizard tried to do the same thing as the creators of The Bride of Chucky, the Scream trilogy, and the Scary Movie trilogy. They tried to create a classic spoof of a genre that begs to be spoofed. While, like the others, they fell a bit short…Broken Lizard did manage to put together a funny little movie. Club Dread is the perfect mix of Scream and Scary Movie. They take an original storyline (steering clear of direct spoofs) and mix in some over-the-top humor. So, what you end up with is outlandish Scary Movie comedy in a more refined, more “original” Scream-like shell.

All in all, Club Dread is worth seeing…especially if you like the Broken Lizard crew, or spoofs of the horror genre.

JP’s Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Club Dread (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMDW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The workers at a babe-infested paradise island are harassed by a grisly killer, who could easily be any one of them. Is it the washed-up rock star owner? The sexy, blonde fitness instructor? Or maybe it’s the overweight masseuse? Hopefully the employees can find out in time to get off of Paradise Island alive.

Comments: I thought this movie was pretty good. Club Dread is a movie with a handful of laugh-out-loud jokes. It does a good job of poking fun at late 70’s and 80’s horror films. There was a lot of subtle humor, which I really enjoyed. I don’t doubt that upon a second viewing, I would pick up on a half a dozen jokes that I overlooked during tonight’s first viewing.

Don’t go in expecting a comedic masterpiece. I think that’s the problem a lot of people are having with this film. They’re expecting it to be on par with Broken Lizard’s earlier hit film, Super Troopers. Well, this just isn’t the same kind of comedy. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good comedy…just not the same kind.

Broken Lizard tried to do the same thing as the creators of The Bride of Chucky, the Scream trilogy, and the Scary Movie trilogy. They tried to create a classic spoof of a genre that begs to be spoofed. While, like the others, they fell a bit short…Broken Lizard did manage to put together a funny little movie. Club Dread is the perfect mix of Scream and Scary Movie. They take an original storyline (steering clear of direct spoofs) and mix in some over-the-top humor. So, what you end up with is outlandish Scary Movie comedy in a more refined, more “original” Scream-like shell.

All in all, Club Dread is worth seeing…especially if you like the Broken Lizard crew, or spoofs of the horror genre.

JP’s Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Cooler (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001EFV7C.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Luck be a lady, tonight. Bernie works for an old-fashioned casino...cooling down the hot-handed gamblers with his unlucky presence. Things for Bernie take a lucky turn when he falls in love with a casino waitress, much to the chagrin of the casino’s no-nonsense owner.

Comments: The Cooler was a very entertaining, very character-driven movie. If you’re looking for a movie full of action and rich dialogue, this isn’t the movie for you (though, it does have a touch of both). No, you should only see this movie if you’re looking for a film with a nice, new storyline, and great characters driven by great acting (Maria Bello and William H. Macy deserved to be nominated for acting Oscars alongside Baldwin).

Aside from the story and the acting, there are quite a few other reasons to see this movie. The cinematography and direction are great. I loved the feel of the movie. I also liked some of the editing and special-effect gimmicks that were tossed in here and there. Oh, and the musical score fit the tone of the movie perfectly. All in all, it’s a solid movie…especially considering the fact that it’s a low budget indie-type flic.

Word of mouth has been strong for this movie. In the first 20 days after it was released on DVD and VHS…it’s rental gross tripled the total cinematic gross. If that many people are renting it (not to mention the number of people who bought it), that tells me that a lot of people enjoyed it and recommended it to their friends. So, I’ll do the same, and recommend it to you guys.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Alec Baldwin)
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Alec Baldwin)
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Maria Bello)
2003 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Sonny (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009K011.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: In 1981 New Orleans, Sonny has just been discharged from the army. Prior to combat, the only life he knew was that of a gigolo, working for his mother. After a few years of service, hopeful about a job in Texas that one of his army buddies has promised to set him up with, Sonny decides it's time for a change of direction. If only it were that easy.

Comments: Very interesting story, with very well developed characters. Nicholas Cage did a wonderful job with this film, his directorial debut. He ended up making a visually brilliant film. The acting by James Franco was superb, and he was perfectly cast for the role he played. I loved the movie's ending.

There are a few complaints, though. Sometimes the acting and direction was a bit over the top, so every now and then the film had a melodramatic feel that it could have done without. There were a couple of small directorial slip-ups, also...but that's expected with any first-time director. All in all, it's a decent film. Not among my list of favorites, but certainly worth seeing.

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Y Tu Mamá También (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JL57.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: With their girlfriends in Europe for the summer, Tenoch and Julio meet an older, attractive woman at a wedding, where they invite her to join them on a road trip. Intrigued by the young men, and desperate to escape her own life, she decides to take them up on the offer.

Comments: Wow. I loved this movie. I'm slowly but surely becoming a huge fan of Mexican cinema. The character development in this movie was spectacular. As the movie progresses, the characters revel in their carefree adolescence, all the while making discoveries about friendship, life, love, and sex.

I think what I loved most about this film was how, as the audience becomes attached to the characters, the film's narration remains detached. The creators let the story make an impact on the audience, rather than trying to force a viewer reaction with unrealism and forced dialogue.

The cinematography and direction were top-notch. The director has no qualms about a shaky, handheld camera, staying with a scene for a moment or two longer than necessary, or letting the camera wander off from time to time. The result is a film that leaves us feeling almost as if we're eavesdropping on the characters.

Good acting. Good direction. Good cinematography. Good story. Good dialogue. Good musical score. Good voice-over narration. I could go on, but I won't. It’s a great movie that you should definitely see. As I’ve said before…don’t let the subtitles scare you away. If you avoid foreign films solely because of subtitles (which you won’t even notice after five or ten minutes), you’re truly missing out.

Awards & Nominations:
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Foreign Film
2003 Grammy Nomination - Best Motion Picture Soundtrack
2002 MTV Movie Award (Latin America) - Best Insult
2002 MTV Movie Award (Latin America) - Best Kiss
2002 MTV Movie Award (Latin America) - Favorite Film
Six other 2002 MTV Movie Award (Latin America) Nominations

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Dirty Pretty Things (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00018D3LE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Okwe is a Nigerian doctor living illegally in London, working at a hotel where prostitution is a nightly occurrence. Senay, whom he's living with, also works illegally at the hotel. When Okwe discovers a human heart in the toilet of one of the rooms...he stumbles upon something larger than the petty crimes that typically occur within the hotel's walls.

Comments: This was a decent little film out of England, but I wasn't as impressed with the movie as I had hoped to be. It received great critical acclaim, and I had heard nothing but good from people who had seen it. No doubt, it's a strong film...driven by great acting and a good story. However, it wasn't anything above and beyond. To receive positive acclaim across the board, as this film has, I would think a movie would need that one thing to make it stand out above the rest. This movie didn't have that one thing. It was strong in all aspects, but not stellar in any.

Perhaps I just had too high of expectations. After all, the acting (as I've already mentioned), was very commendable...and the story was a good one. I enjoyed the film's romantic tone, and the fact that it wasn't at all typical. I also enjoyed the film's subtle comments about immigration and labor. However, it seemed to lack that one thing to make it stand out above the rest.

Perhaps I just like to be hit in the face with something unique, and I'm overlooking this movie for what it is: a good story with good acting. Whatever the reason, I simply wasn't as blown away as everyone else seemed to be. This doesn't mean you shouldn't see it. Who knows...maybe you can tell me what it is I overlooked.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay


JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

An Evening with Kevin Smith (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007149S.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This 2-Disc DVD set documents a 5-stop tour that writer/director Kevin Smith made to universities across the nation. In these Q&A sessions, Smith fields questions on topics ranging from his stance on political issues such as same-sex relations, to his cover appearance on High Times magazine.

Comments: This isn't my typical movie review. In fact, as you might notice, I'm not even offering a rating for this post. However, after watching all four hours of this DVD set tonight (not for the first time, might I add), I feel it deserves a post.

Buy this DVD. That's all there is to it. This is a must own...especially if you're a fan of Kevin Smith's films (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and most recently, Jersey Girl). Even if you're not, you should check this DVD out. Kevin Smith tells numerous hilarious stories, gives great insight into himself and his industry, and keeps things interesting with hijinks such as calling an audience member's place of business to request that they give the kid his job back.

Informative, hilarious, and well worth my money...many times over. Trust me when I say that if you purchase this 2-Disc DVD set, which should only set you back $20 or so, you won't be let down.

JP's Rating: N/A
IMDB.com Rating: 8.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Ocean's Eleven (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000062XHI.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Fresh out of prison, Danny Ocean plans a heist. The catch? He and his recently assembled crew are planning on hitting one of the most secure places on the planet...the shared vault of the Bellagio, the Mirage, and the MGM Grand. The score? On a fight night, the night they intend to hit the place...over $163 million.

Comments: All-star cast: Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Andy Garcia, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, and smaller-name stars such as Bernie Mac, Casey Affleck, and Scott Caan. This movie is very much driven by it's story. There was nothing ground-breaking in the editing and cinematography department (which is what I usually appreciate most in a movie). However, the film did have a very smooth style. A good, warm feel to it that I very much appreciated. I was also a fan of the on-screen chemistry between the actors...some of the best I've seen.

Few complaints. There are a handful of plot holes that take away from what makes this movie so great: the idea that a heist of this magnitude might be able to actually occur. Aside from that, though...I don't have any major complaints. It's a good, entertaining movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. See it if you haven't.

Awards & Nominations:
2002 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Dressed (Clooney)
2002 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best On-Screen Team

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Fight Club (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000067J1H.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When a 30-something year old, materialistic business man gets bored with his life, he becomes involved with a charasmatic fellow named Tyler Durden. Together, the two create an underground "fight club" that begins to evolve into something more than a place for your everyday Joe to unleash his frustrations.

Comments: This movie is spectacular. It's easily one of my all-time favorites (which makes me sound like a walking cliche, since it's a favorite of 95% of movie-goers). Simply put, this film has it all. Great acting, a spectacular screenplay, awesome direction, cinematography, and editing, good pacing, wonderful narration...everything.

This movie (and the book) cemented my appreciation for Chuck Palahniuk as a writer. I've since read three more of his books (and a short story), and I enjoyed all of them. However, this isn't JP's Book Review Thread, so I'll spare you. Let's just say that thanks to Palahniuk's brilliance, we have one of the most entertaining movies in the past decade or so. I can't wait for some of his other books to be made into movies (the rumor mills are turning, and there are talks that a handful of his books are in pre-production, one of which has already started casting the lead roles).

Anyway, back to Fight Club. Great movie that has it all. Definitely a must see.

Awards & Nominations:
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Effects
2000 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Fight

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.5/10 (Top 250 - #41)

[brandon-n]

Im posting here because im god, and you cant stop me, this thread sucks

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMEW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: After being in a coma for four long years, the bride wants to get revenge on those who attacked her on the night of her wedding. In the first volume of this two part film, she tracks down two of the people responsible: Vernita Green, and O-Ren Ishii.

Comments: Quentin Tarantino loves paying tribute to the recollections of his youth. He grew up watching samurai films in the 70's, so is it any surprise that he pays homage to them in this film?

It's a strong film...though not as good as Tarantino's other work. I appreciate it for what it is, a tribute to the cheesy samurai films of his youth...but it just doesn't do it for me. Not particularly strong in dialogue (in contrast to his previous films and screenplays). It's still a good movie, just not my type. I appreciated the good acting, the whole tributary feel of the movie, the music, and the trademark dark humor...among other things.

A good film that I'm happy to own...Kill Bill just isn't among my favorites. It's still well worth watching, though.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actress (Uma Thurman)
2004 Grammy Nomination - Best Soundtrack
2004 MTV Movie Award - Best Female Performance (Uma Thurman)
2004 MTV Movie Award - Best Fight
2004 MTV Movie Award - Best Villain

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.3/10 (Top 250 - #65)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001LQJMQ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An elderly man, who thinks he's Elvis, teams up with an elderly black man, who thinks he's J.F.K. Together, they try to defend their nursing home from a mummy who has come to feast on the souls of those who reside there.

Comments: Haha. The plot description says it all. This movie is not your typical Hollywood flic. Bruce Campbell is known for taking roles that reside outside of the norm (from Maniac Cop to the Evil Dead series). He says that this is the craziest roll he's ever played. I'm inclined to agree.

I loved the fast, flash-type editing used in the film. The acting was awesome, and the story/dialogue was pure comedic genius. I'd recommend it. Don't expect anything other than what the plot description says, though.

Haha. I really do think this movie is going to grow on me once it sinks in that it really is a movie about two old guys that think they're Elvis and JFK...who fight a mummy that's using their retirement home as a feeding ground. How can you not like a movie with that kind of plot? It's so good that the screenplay won a Bram Stoker Award, and the short story on which it was based was nominated for one.

Classic.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Adaptation (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLRE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Writer Charlie Kaufman is given the job of adapting The Orchid Thief, a non-fiction book, into a screenplay. As he struggles, his twin brother Donald breezes through his first script, a cliche-ridden thriller. Faced with a massive case of writer's block, Charlie goes against everything he believes in, and turns to Donald for help finishing his screenplay.

Comments: Adaptation has the most brilliant screenplay of any movie I've ever seen. Hands down. This is easily one of my favorite movies. Nicholas Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper all turn in spectacular performances. Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman have such a chemistry that the direction and screenplay go hand in hand, and end up meshing to form a spectacular final product.

I adore this movie. Great acting, good direction, and the smartest screenplay I've ever seen. What more can I ask for?

Awards & Nominations:
2003 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actor (Cooper)
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Streep)
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (Cage)
2003 Academy Award Nomination - Best Adapted Screenplay
2003 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Cooper)
2003 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actress (Streep)
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Jonze)
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (Cage)
2003 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #216)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Intacto (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008WJBU.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Intacto, one of Spain's more recent films to receive American acclaim, views luck as a tangible object...something to be given away, stolen, sold, or, in most cases, wagered and collected. When Sam (a Jewish concentration camp survivor), who is the pinnacle of lucky men, steals the luck of Federico (an earthquake survivor), Federico swears vengeance. He then meets Tomas, the lone survivor of a plane crash, who just might be the man to help. Problem is, Tomas is wanted by the police, and the female officer who is pursuing him has a bit of luck herself.

Comments: This Spanish movie was quite good, but nowhere near as good as some of the other foreign films I've seen lately. It's got an entertaining, original plot...which is a plus. There are some standout acting performances (particularly from the great Max Von Sydow). There is beautiful imagery. The direction and editing have a way of keeping you on your toes. The film raises good questions in regard to luck and fate, and whether or not they're the blessings we believe them to be.

However, even with all of that, I just felt there was something missing. I never really got into the movie, and I can't put my finger on the reason why. Perhaps it's because, for the first half hour of the film, you're in the dark as to what's going on. Perhaps it's because I wasn't in the frame of mind to devote 100% of my attention to a movie that truly demands it.

Whatever the reason, Intacto just didn't really do it for me. That's not to say that you'll have the same reaction. It really is an interesting premise for a film, and it has a lot of originality and a few outstanding scenes (especially the one captured on the photo above). If it sounds interesting to you, you might want to check it out. However, I more than likely won't be recommending it to any of my friends. It's above average, though not anywhere near being a cinematic masterpiece.

Oh, and if you do decide to watch it, be warned that the majority of the film is in Spanish...so if subtitles aren't your slice of pie, you'll want to take a pass on Intacto.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.9/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Butterfly Effect (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001Z52RU.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: All through his childhood, Evan had unexplainable blackouts. One day in college, he decides to look through some old journals. It is then that the suppressed memories begin to come back to him. Thing is, if he at all alters the event in his memory, the repercussions will be felt in his present day life. Ever wanted to go back in time and change something? ...are you sure?

Comments: Well, this movie, like any other, has it's pros and it's cons. Unfortunately, they tend to be much more defined for this film. The cons are borderline painful, but the pros make you want to ignore them. I'll start with the bad. First on the list: acting. Much respect to Ashton Kutcher for attempting to broaden his horizons rather than sticking with the slapstick comedies that have made him famous. Sadly, though, he just doesn't cut it in this role. He overacts some scenes, and in others, it looks as if he's just reciting memorized lines and actions.

Second: I wasn't a big fan of the way that the film took about a half dozen serious issues (child abuse, prostitution, pedophilia, physical disabilities, animal rights), and used them solely for a shock value. Their purpose was to make the viewer say, "damn, things aren't working out for him in this scene" rather than, "damn, that's a serious problem." Not that I'm condemning the film for addressing deeper issues than the normal blockbuster film does...I just wish they would have produced a deeper film, as opposed to having a, "pedophilia, check. animal abuse, check. physical handicap, check." type attitude. Granted, not all films have to be deep (and it's especially not expected in Hollywood films), but this film just had a way of cheapening these societal woes.

Now for the pros. For starters, I love the premise of the movie. The chaos effect is truly interesting stuff. We had a discussion about it once in elementary school. That last sentence says a lot, because I hardly remember anything about elementary school. Very interesting subject matter that was just begging to be adapted into a film. Considering Butterfly Effect was a popcorn flic, I think it did a pretty damn good job with it's subject matter. Second on my list of pros is the acting. I know, it was a con earlier. Well, now it's also a pro. Amy Smart did a wonderful job of acting out many versions of one character. I feel that, had she not been starring opposite Ashton Kutcher, her performance would have shined even more.

I also liked the way the film came together in a few parts. All in all, it's a strong movie...though not as great as I've heard a lot of people make it out to be. It's drawn a lot of Donnie Darko comparisons, which I think is totally unfair. Donnie Darko takes a much more subtle approach, and features deeply drawn characters. They are two totally different films, despite a relatively similar premise. Anyway, Butterfly Effect is worth watching, though, at best, it will end up being a guilty pleasure.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Mystic River (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001ZX0PG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Sean, Jimmy, and Dave were childhood friends. In the years following a tragic event, the three grew up, and grew apart. However, when Jimmy's daughter is murdered, they are again brought together. Dave's a suspect, and Sean, now a detective, tries to find the killer before the volatile Jimmy takes actions into his own hands.

Comments: Hm. I honestly don't see what all of the fuss is about. The only thing that came close to saving this movie for me was the acting, which was superb. Sadly, it was wasted on a relatively unoriginal script, and average directing from an above average film personality (Clint Eastwood).

Like I said, aside from the acting, this movie is nothing special. The plot reminded me of that of a "who dunnit" television crime drama. At times, the dialogue is both bland and forced. The entire feel of the movie is too melodramatic for my liking. The pacing is slow, so much so that in a few instances I caught my mind wandering. Seemed at times that Eastwood was going for "epic" in length, rather than producing a film with a length appropriate for it's story. The ending was about as subtle as...well, something that's not really subtle at all.

I don't mind downtrodden, hard-hitting urban dramas. In fact, I tend to like them. This movie just didn't do it for me. It tried too hard to be a deep, character-driven film. Instead of letting the characters and story take their own path and develop their own depth, I feel like the film hit me in the face with the idea that "these are deep, emotional characters." With all of the hype (from critics and the Academy alike), I was extremely disappointed.

With all of the acclaim it's gotten, I won't tell you not to see it. I don't want my personal taste to keep you from seeing a movie that quite possibly everyone else on the face of the planet enjoyed. However, I won't be watching it again anytime soon.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award - Best Actor (Sean Penn)
2004 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actor (Tim Robbins)
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Clint Eastwood)
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Marcia Gay Harden)
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Adapted Screenplay
2003 Cannes Film Festival - Golden Coach (Best Director)
2003 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)
2004 Golden Globe - Best Actor, Drama (Sean Penn)
2004 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Tim Robbins)
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Clint Eastwood)
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.1/10 (Top 250 - #123)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Monster (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMUK.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Monster tells the true story of Aileen Carol Wuornos, a prostitute who was convicted of, and executed for, killing seven men in Florida...but not before she found love with a woman named Selby.

Comments: Very powerful film that will stick with me for quite some time. Charlize Theron's performance is quite possibly the best I've ever seen. This movie just had so much...feeling. You could sense unspoken connections, fear, sadness...throughout the entire movie. I can't go on enough about how wonderful the acting was on Theron's part, and Ricci does a great job of keeping up. Their on-screen chemistry was very strong. At times it's hard to see the "love" in their relationship, because the two do a lot of fighting...but given their roles, I think they worked really well together. The pacing was good, especially considering the lack of experience of director Patty Jenkins. The music was great.

My only big complaint is the fact that, at times, the actions of Theron’s character seemed to be glorified a bit. They did a good job of showing her cold-blooded view on murder...but they also justified her actions a bit by having the character justify them in her own mind. Now, for all I know, this is the way things went down according to Aileen Wuornos. If that’s the case, the movie is doing a good job of being as accurate as they can be to the story, as told through the only living person to bear witness to the crimes. However, if it was just a ploy to build a sympathetic character, it was wholly unnecessary, and took away from the realism of the film.

That’s my only main complaint, though. It’s a really solid film all around. You should definitely check this movie out.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award - Best Actress (Charlize Theron)
2004 Golden Globe - Best Actress, Drama (Charlize Theron)
2004 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Female Performance (Charlize Theron)
2004 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Kiss (Theron/Ricci)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Kids (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004YA6G.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Kids is a low-budget film that tells the story of 24 hours in the lives of teenagers growing up in poverty in New York City. Telly, the character around which the film revolves, has a goal of deflowering as many young virgins as he possibly can. Between fuck-buddies, Telly's time is spent with his best friend, Casper.

Comments: As obviously low-budget as Larry Clark's "Kids" is...this movie is what other true-to-life teenage movies should try to emulate. The acting often doesn't seem like acting. Instead, the film feels like a documentarian is following these characters around on a given day in their lives. Outside of the dialogue and acting, the feel of the movie remains more "real" than "movie," thanks in large part to the shaky, hand-held camera used in filming...and great direction by then-first-timer Larry Clark.

The dialogue and actions of the kids in this movie aren't meant to be representative of every member of today's youth. Rather, they're a reflection of those kids who end up taking the wrong path, be it because of normal teenage rebellion, or because they were born into poverty. So, to some of us...the movie's script might seem a bit overblown and cynical, but that's what it was intended to be...and in that, it most certainly succeeds.

Clark, and co-writer Harmony Korine couldn't have come up with a better ending to this movie. Kids is definitely worth a watch...but beware of it's crude nature. This isn't the type of movie you'll want to pop in with the family, or with a judgemental, goodie-goodie friend.

Awards & Nominations:
1995 Cannes Film Festival - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Mulholland Drive (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JKJA.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Writing a plot description for this film is going to take a bit of work. Truthfully, I could give a detailed description of the entire film, scene by scene, and you would have about as much information about the film's plot as you do now. I'll say this: on the surface, it's a film about a beautiful girl who's involved in an automobile accident. Bewildered and amnesiac, she wanders into the apartment of a woman who's on vacation. When the woman's niece comes to stay, she's surprised to find the amnesiac girl in what she expected to be her aunt's abandoned apartment. However, her surprise quickly turns to intrigue, as she excitedly delves into a Nancy-Drew type investigation to help this woman find out exactly who she is.

Comments: Great movie. However, be warned: you should not see this movie if you're not a fan of unconventional cinema...because Mulholland Drive is anything but traditional. This movie plays out like a dream, with scenes that make sense individually, but don't add up to create a typical story. However, there is some method to Mulholland's madness, which is why it stands so highly regarded. Anybody can create a wild movie. Only a genius (in this case, David Lynch) can create a wild movie that works as well as Mulholland Drive does.

The acting in the movie is phenomenal. Naomi Watts deserved, at the very least, an Oscar nomination. Her omission is, in my opinion, one of the Academy's most outright absurd neglections since it's creation in the 1920's. The direction is superb, as is the writing. David Lynch took an unconventional idea, and did an unbelievable job of making it come to life.

Be warned, though...Mulholland Drive is not for the everyday movie-goer. If you don't like films that make you think, you'll want to overlook this one. You’ll also want to stay away if you’re scared off by sexy, sultry cinema. However, even though it's not everyone's taste, Mulholland Drive is a superb film that is guaranteed to improve with each viewing.

Awards & Nominations:
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (David Lynch)
2001 Cannes Film Festival - Best Director (David Lynch)
2001 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (David Lynch)
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Score
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #200)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Big Fish (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001GOH6Q.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: As Edward Bloom approaches the end of his time, his son grasps for some understanding of who his father truly is. He's known his father all of his life, but feels that he has been kept at a distance by Edward's unflinching habit of telling tall-tales. Throughout the movie, Edward and his son, Will, think back on the tales that have defined Edward's life. As they go on this journey, Edward's story plays out on screen as one larger-than-life adventure after another.

Comments: I love Tim Burton. I'm not a fan of his artsy persona, but he has created films that, in my mind, will stand the test of time. This movie, like Edward Scissorhands, is filled with absolutely dazzling cinematography. The movie exudes such beauty that one can't help but be taken in by it. Whoever says that fairy-tales and make believe are child-play has never experienced a Tim Burton masterpiece. Like any other director, he's had his fair share of flops (namely: his Planet of the Apes remake). However, when Tim Burton is on, he's really, really on.

I won't go into my usual diatribe about acting and pacing (though this film is quite strong in both fields). No, Big Fish extends well beyond the fundamentals of good cinema. Even if only for it's light-hearted nature, captivating story, and breathtaking cinematography...Big Fish is well worth watching, and watching again. If I were asked to describe this film in one word, I would have a hard time choosing between magical and beautiful. I read somewhere that Big Fish is the Wizard of Oz of our generation. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Score
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Score
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Song
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Albert Finney)

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #190)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Almost Famous (2000):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CXMG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: William Miller is an extremely bright 15 year old who has a passion for rock music. When he's hired by Rolling Stone magazine to write an article, he chooses to write about the up and coming band "Stillwater." While on tour with them, he's exposed to things that his protective mother would never approve of. Along the way, though, he learns a bit about life, love, and loyalty.

Comments: Almost Famous is a good, entertaining movie...but I do think it's a bit overrated. No doubt, Cameron Crowe came up with a very entertaining story about music, youth, and innocence. However, it just doesn't seem like the type of film that will stick with me for any extended period of time. It's more, "huh, well that was pretty good," and then out of mind.

To this film's credit, it's quite obvious that Crowe has a passion for music. When you write about something you know, something you're passionate about...you're bound to succeed. Cameron Crowe certainly succeeded with Almost Famous, though, I don't think it's the masterpiece that everyone makes it out to be. Granted, there are moments when the film truly shines (mostly through Francis McDormand's performance as the mother). Crowe also does a praiseworthy job of capturing the essence of music on film.

However, I think the reason this movie falls short in my eyes is that it just didn't do anything for me. There were moments where I was supposed to feel sad, or I was supposed to be happy for the characters...but I just didn't. I felt detached from the entire cast of characters. The ending left me wanting more...not more movie, but more creativity. All in all, it's an entertaining little movie that's probably worth seeing once, but I just don't see what all of the fuss is about.

Awards & Nominations:
2001 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
2001 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Kate Hudson)
2001 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Francis McDormand)
2001 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
2001 Golden Globe - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy
2001 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actress (Kate Hudson)
2001 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay
2001 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Francis McDormand)
2001 Grammy - Best Compilation Soundtrack
2001 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Dressed (Kate Hudson)
2001 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Female Performance (Kate Hudson)
2001 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Line from a Movie
2001 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Music Moment
2001 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Breakthrough Male Performance (Patrick Fugit)

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #178)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Lucía Y El Sexo (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000844I6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: In this tale of sex and love, numerous stories and characters intertwine on an isolated island. All are connected by an author who's life has become the basis for his current work-in-progress.

Comments: Sex and Lucía is yet another foreign film that left me thoroughly enamored. This is one of the strongest love stories I've seen in quite some time, and possibly the most erotic mainstream (albeit foreign) film that I've ever seen. However, the film's eroticism isn't used for shock value or cheap thrills, but instead plays an integral role in the unfolding of the story, almost as if it is it's own character. My one complaint is that the United States is so scared by the act of sex that they felt it appropriate to edit the film...and I walked away having watched a censored version of a movie that could have been exponentially deeper if shown in it's entirety (same goes for my earlier review of Y Tu Mamá También).

The acting, while decent, isn't this film's high point. The film's true strength lies in it's story, it's direction, and it's beautiful soundtrack and cinematography. I loved the way the film was constantly shifting from past to present, from fiction to fact. Despite Sex and Lucía's artistic nature (and unlike today's other reviewed film, Almost Famous), I actually grew quite attached to the characters. I truly cared about what happened...about how things turned out. The film managed to be artistic without sacrificing character depth in the process. That alone garners my deepest appreciation.

My typical warning to viewers who are turned off by anything outside of the norm: this film is in Spanish with subtitles, and even the edited R-rated version contains quite a bit of nudity and raw sensuality. If these are things that turn you off, this isn't the movie for you. Otherwise, this film is definitely worth your time.

Awards & Nominations:
2002 Goya Award - Best New Actress (Paz Vega)
2002 Goya Award - Best Original Score
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Cinematography
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Director (Julio Medem)
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Editing
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Film
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Actor (Tristán Ulloa)
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Sound
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Elena Anaya)
2002 Goya Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Najwa Nimri)
*Note: The Goya Awards are Spain's equivilant to our Academy Awards*

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007ELEP.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: Four Englishmen put in £25,000 each so that one of them can enter a high stakes poker game. Things don't go as planned, and the poker player walks out of the tournament owing a feared porn king £500,000. If the money isn't paid within one week, the porn king's crony will collect a different payment: one finger per day from each of the four Englishmen, until the debt is paid in full. One week. £500,000. How do you do it?

Comments: Lock, Stock is a good movie. It's above average, but not a masterpiece. Hell, it can be argued that it's not even Guy Ritchie's best film. What it is, though, is a strong film with a very intricate, interwoven plot. Those of you who enjoyed Ritchie's other hit, Snatch, are likely to enjoy Lock, Stock...as they're both cut from the same mold.

Ritchie is quite one dimensional right now as a writer/director. Both “Lock, Stock” and “Snatch” are crime thrillers, comprised of a dozen or so characters, where things tend to take a humorous twist and never seem to go as planned. He tried to branch off with "Swept Away," and failed miserably. He draws a lot of comparisons to Quentin Tarantino (and a lot of criticism, as well, since Quentin came first) because, like Tarantino, he has a habit of using dark humor and numerous connected storylines and characters. However, the two have completely different directing styles...so don't be fooled into thinking that Guy Ritchie is an overseas Tarantino wannabe.

Anyway, I digress...if you liked Snatch, you should like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. The latter is a bit more stylized than the former...but both are quite similar in storylines (and they even share a few leading actors). If you haven't seen either film, you should check them out. They're quite entertaining...especially if you're a fan of dark humor and crime stories that don't take themselves too seriously.

Awards & Nominations:
1999 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best New Filmmaker (Guy Ritchie)

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #224)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Best in Show (2000):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005ALS0.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: There's a southern man who owns a fishing supply store. There's a married couple that, well, fights like a married couple. There's a high-maintenance trophy wife. There's a small town couple, comprised of a quirky, jealous husband and his wife (who happens to keep running into men she slept with in the past). There's a gay couple. What do they all have in common? Each own a dog that is set to compete in the distinguished, annual Mayflower Kennel Club Dog Show.

Comments: This is certainly not your typical comedy. There aren't many laugh-out-loud moments, but the entire film is comprised of tongue-in-cheek humor. Think of this movie as Reno 911, stretched into a full length feature, and focused on the subject matter of dog breeding and showing. A full cast of quirky characters that really drive the humor, a serious guise covering a comedic basis, all presented with a mockumentary tone. The major difference is that, while this movie is quite over the top, it isn't so over the top that you find yourself laughing out loud...and that, in my eyes, is it's major flaw.

It's hard to tell who will find Best in Show funny, and who won't. It most definitely takes a certain sense of humor to appreciate this movie. The acting is awesome (relatively, of course). The writing is terrific, I mean...this is a very watchable, quite enjoyable film about a dog show. Not too many people could produce a film about a dog show that will attract a wide variety of people. I think the key to this movie is Eugene Levy (the father from the American Pie series). The film stars, and was co-written by Levy...and is drenched in his personality. If you were taken by his American Pie character, you'll enjoy this film.

However, with that said...the film receives a relatively low score from me simply because it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, and because it was too overblown in it's humor to garner serious praise for anything other than it's comedy. In the end, it was a fun movie to watch, but it lacked the side-splitting moments that make a comedy great. I judge a comedy by the number of times it makes me laugh...and while the film as a whole is good for a laugh, it was just a bit too subtle in it's humor for my liking.

Now that you know what it's about, you can decide whether or not it sounds like a movie that will cater to your sense of humor...and ultimately, whether or not it's worth your time.

Awards & Nominations:
2001 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMUA.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Spoilers. If you've seen Volume one, highlight the space between the asterisks. If not, you should probably go ahead and see Volume 1 before bothering with this review.

***Her list originally contained five names. With O-Ren Ishii and Vernita Green crossed off, only three remain: Elle Driver, Budd, and Bill. However, things might not be as easy as the bride had planned. Bill knows she's coming for him, and he's got one thing working in his favor: the daughter that the bride doesn't know she has.***

Comments: Most people who have seen Kill Bill in it's entirety tend to appreciate the first volume more than the second. After 60 or so reviews, you shouldn't be surprised when my opinion deviates from the norm. Personally, I liked the second installment of Kill Bill more than the first. It had more character depth, stronger dialogue, a better blend of plot with action, and stronger direction and cinematography. I just found the second volume to be much more visually striking than the first (with the omission of Volume one’s final, outdoors fight sequence).

The first volume was a bit too action-driven for my liking. The second volume had it's fair share of action as well...but didn't seem to rely on it as heavily as the first. Strange as it may seem, I think this relative deficiency in action sequences actually strengthened Tarantino's homage to the samurai classics of his youth. Volume two is the perfect way to wrap up the story that was left hanging at the end of Volume one. You get your dose of action with a bit of character development in the first installment, and you get ample character depth with a touch of action in the second installment. In the end, it all balances out to give the viewer a very entertaining, well-rounded film.

Awards & Nominations:
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actress, Drama (Uma Thurman)
2005 Gloden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (David Carradine)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.2/10 (Top 250 - #117)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Irréversible (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00009W0U4.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: "Time destroys all things." This is the premise of Irréversible, in which Alex, a beautiful middle-class woman, is savagely beaten and raped. Shortly thereafter, her boyfriend and a friend of hers decide that rather than waiting for the police to track down a suspect and escort him to a relatively comfortable jail cell...they'll take it upon themselves to see to it that justice is served.

Comments: This film truly holds nothing back. Gaspar Noé wanted to write and direct a picture that shows in gruesome detail the consequences of fate. The film plays out in reverse chronology...with the end credits rolling backwards during the opening scene. Cut from the same cloth as Memento...the viewer gains a deeper understanding of a scene only after the following scene has played out. Using this tactic, Noé does a brilliant job of displaying the consequences of every action.

Personally, I think this film is brilliant. Non-casual, intelligent viewers of this film can walk away with two completely different opinions of it. Some people are appalled, some are amazed, and some walk away with a bit of both. Personally, I fall into the last of the three categories. The first 15-20 minutes are difficult due to the extreme, shaky cinematography and bewilderment as to what exactly is going on. However, once you get past that, you're thrown into a cinematic journey that's guaranteed to evoke a string of emotions.

The acting (namely, Monica Bellucci's performance) and direction are both incredible. The multi-layered story is gut wrenching, but unforgettable. All in all, it's just a great movie. However, be warned...this film is in French with subtitles, and it's certainly not for those with a weak stomach, as there are a couple of very disturbingly violent scenes (more-so than the typical gross-out slasher film). In the end, hard as is might have been to watch...this movie does an amazing job of withdrawing numerous ideas and emotions from the viewer, and that I respect above all else.

Awards & Nominations:
2002 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Bad Santa (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001I55MO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A moody conman and his little-person partner pose as Santa and an elf at department stores...only to clean out the safe and merchandise after closing time. However, things go awry as the conman befriends a troubled kid, and turns to the bottle to drown out the pesky cheer of the holiday season.

Comments: It takes a certain sense of humor to appreciate this type of comedy. Personally, I found it very funny. There were quite a few times that I absolutely burst out in laughter. I suppose I just like the idea of a guy who doesn't give a damn about other people's feelings. There's just something about seeing Billy Bob Thornton hear something, do a double take, then just go off on a curse-filled tangent that makes me laugh out loud. There have been so many times that I'll hear somebody say something so ignorant or corny that I just want to tell them, as loudly as possible, to fuck themselves. Perhaps that's why I laughed out loud every time Billy Bob Thornton's character did what I'm usually too polite to do.

There was one glaring downside to the film, in my opinion. The movie seemed to force a bit of emotion here and there that it could have done without. The creators made a half-hearted attempt to say, "this character doesn't care about anyone but himself...but he's sentimental at times, but not really, just kinda." In my opinion, the film could have done without the typical "sleazebag really has a heart of gold deep down that he never lets shine" storyline.

To sum it all up: while this movie probably won't appeal to everyone's sense of humor, and it could have done without the forced sentimentality, I found it quite funny. It's an above average comedy that's worth watching.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor, Musical or Comedy (Billy Bob Thornton)

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Hollywood Homicide (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000B00KB.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When they're not solving murders in Hollywood, this mismatched pair of detectives are moonlighting in other fields: one as an actor, one as a real-estate agent. When they're assigned to investigate the murder of an up-and-coming rap group, they're forced to dig deep into the music industry. Hopefully they can come up with some answers. If not, they'd probably settle for an acting audition or a real-estate buyer.

Comments: I'm uncertain about this movie. I do know one thing, no matter what it was going for, it didn't do as good of a job as it could have. If it was trying to be serious...and God I hope it wasn't, it failed on a massive fucking level. If it was trying to be a satire, it succeeded, but not to the extent of it's predecessors (namely, the Naked Gun flics of the late 80's and early 90's).

For the film's sake, I'm going to assume it was satirical. Even given that, it just wasn't enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, there were some bright spots. However, it threw in all of the cliches (mismatched partners, a ball-busting superior, corrupt cops, etc)...and didn't attempt to spoof them. Had they pointed out the glaring overuse of these plot devices, perhaps the film would have shined more than it did.

What you're left with, however, is an extremely typical cop movie (satire or not) that doesn't deliver. Not that I expected much more with a cast including such cinematic heavyweights as Josh Hartnett and Master P. It is a shame, though, that this is what Harrison Ford's career has come to. From Star Wars and Indiana Jones to Hollywood Homicide and K-19: The Widowmaker. I wanted to close with a joke about Hollywood Homicide being Harrison Ford's Hollywood suicide...but he'll always be a heavyweight, and I don't have enough wit to pull off that corny of a joke. So, instead, I'll just close by telling you to save your time, and watch something else.

JP's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

True Romance (1993):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6304602979.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Clarence happens upon a hooker, and within a couple of days, falls in love with her and marries her. He then steals her pimp's cocaine, and the couple heads off to Hollywood hoping to cash in on their stockpile of contraband. Little do they know, the owners of the cocaine are quite unhappy, and are fresh on their trail.

Comments: This movie has a great story, and strong acting performances by an outstanding cast. Let me list some of the film's credits for you: Christian Slater, Brad Pitt, Christopher Walken, Samuel L. Jackson, Dennis Hopper, James Gandolfini, Chris Penn, and Gary Oldman. Written by Quentin Tarantino. Directed by Tony Scott (Crimson Tide, Days of Thunder, Top Gun). My only complaint with the film's credits is the casting of Patricia Arquette in the role of Alabama, one of the two central characters in the film. She's been in a number of great films, and she's not a bad actress...but I just didn't grow attached to her in this role. At all.

Another complaint is the film's ending. It's extremely improbable...and it seemed as if Quentin Tarantino just couldn't think of a fathomable way to create a happily ever after, so he settled for the ending that we get in the final product (in an attempt to avoid spoilers...you can PM me if you want me to go into deeper detail about this point). One of the few weak points in Tarantino's stellar writing career...which speaks volumes, as most writers have a couple of complete films that are garbage, while Tarantino has only a small weakness in a strong screenplay.

Good, entertaining story by one of Hollywood's best writers. Great performances by acting idols (Brad Pitt shined in his role as the stoner roomie). Awesome job by one of the best directors of the 90's. The pros greatly outweigh the cons. True Romance is certainly worth seeing.

Awards & Nominations:
1994 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Kiss (Slater/Arquette)

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Taxi Driver (1976):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0767830555.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: A lonely, mentally unstable Vietnam veteran takes a job as a late-night taxi driver. Constantly on the streets...he grows more and more disgusted with the scum that seem to be taking over his society. This disgust, paired with numerous failed attempts to build relationships with people, are capable of pushing any man to his breaking point.

Comments: Simply amazing. I honestly don't see how anyone out there can dislike this movie. To sum it up, Martin Scorsese is a genius. Without his direction and Bernard Herrmann's musical score, it wouldn't have been the same. They took a wonderfully powerful, character-driven screenplay...and managed to turn it into something even greater. I took the time to write a plot description for this movie...but it really doesn't do justice to the film's true plot: loneliness, a yearning to be somebody, disgust with society, and, ultimately, mental instability. Quite possibly the best character study I've ever seen. Certainly the truest.

Not to mention the film's outstanding fundamentals: for starters...the direction by Martin Scorsese. He set an absolutely amazing tone for this film with bird's-eye-view camera angles, proper use of voice-over, amazing use of first-person points of view and slow motion, spectacular camera movement...and on, and on, and on. Next, the film's musical score. It's the best of any movie I've ever seen. Simple as that. Finally, the acting. I'd go as far as to say this is one of DeNiro's top three performances of all time (alongside his roles in The Deer Hunter and Raging Bull). However, his castmates kept right up with him, including a brilliant performance by Jodie Foster (at the tender age of 12, mind you).

A great, true-to-live, character-driven screenplay. Spectacular direction. The best musical score of any film I've ever seen. Brilliant acting performances. This movie has it all. If you haven't seen it, do so immediately.

Awards & Nominations:
1977 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (Robert DeNiro)
1977 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actress (Jodie Foster)
1977 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Score
1977 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
1976 Cannes Film Festival - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)
1977 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (Robert DeNiro)
1977 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay
1977 Grammy Nomination - Best Album of Original Score

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.4/10 (Top 250 - #42)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

L.I.E. (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000063K0V.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Fifteen year old Howie has recently lost his mother in a traffic accident. His dad is too tied up with business, legal troubles, and his hot young wife to keep involved in Howie's life. Naturally, Howie lashes out. He and his friend Gary break into the house of an ex-marine named Big John, only their most recent in a string of robberies. As things unfold, we become aware that Gary, and even the victim, Big John, have quite a few secrets.

Comments: Hm. The movie is decent, but doesn't deserve the acclaim that it's received. There is some character depth...and one remarkable acting performance (by Brian Cox). There's decent direction, and a fresh story. However, there's also plenty of cliches...and a bit of subject matter that was thrown in solely for shock value (namely, the incest remarks). It's also a bit pretentious...and tries too hard to come off as intelligent and cultured.

I did find the storyline refreshing, and quite bold. Not too many films these days will take the subject matter of pedophilia head on. L.I.E. does it, and is written so well that you actually develop a bit of sympathy for the perpetrator. All in all, though, it's an average movie that tries to be smarter than it is...and comes up short. Worth seeing only if you like obscure independent films...otherwise, your hour and a half would be better spent elsewhere.

Awards & Nominations:
2001 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Julien Donkey-Boy (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000059HA5.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Julien is a schizophrenic adolescent...being brought up in an unconventional, and often dysfunctional home. This movie, with a sort of documentary feel, follows Julien in some of his numerous different everyday activities.

Comments: The great director Douglas Sirk says, "There is a very short distance between high art and trash." I'm inclined to agree...and this proximity of high art to trash has caused many to unfairly label Julien Donkey-Boy as the latter. There is a fine line between what will be accepted as brilliance, and what will be discarded as amateurish trash. The fact of the matter is...though some people don’t appreciate it, Julien Donkey-Boy is the abstract art of the filmmaking world...and Harmony Korine is it's Picasso.

This movie has received 170 perfect 10/10 votes on IMDB.com, and 120 lowly 1/10 votes. This movie is the very definition of love or hate. With it's Super8/35mm film (very grainy quality), shaky handheld camera style, and outlandish subject matter...it's certainly not to everyone's taste. More accurately...it only caters to the taste of a small minority of filmgoers. I'm one of them, though I can certainly see how others aren’t. Some might be turned off by the film quality and style, and the fact that it's not a traditional beginning-middle-end film (rather, it's a collection of scenes that don't piece together to tell a traditional story). But for me, it was a shockingly realistic look into the life of a schizophrenic (based on Korine's uncle, who leading actor Ewan Bremmer spent many hours with prior to filming). The performances are all absolutely breath-taking. The direction and editing, while wholly unconventional, are captivating, to say the very least. When you take into account the fact that many of the scenes are ad-libbed (and some are actually filmed in the real world, with actors or a third-person wearing a hidden camera), the impressiveness of the acting and direction is exponentially magnified.

With that said, I'm not going to recommend this movie to anyone...because my responsibility here to is offer good advice to people about films they might like. I can think of only a couple of people who might actually enjoy this movie as much as I did. However, now that you know what it's all about, and how truly love-or-hate it really is...you can decide for yourself whether you want to see it or not.

Awards & Nominations:
Nominations from every film festival at which it was shown, including Stockholm.
Cinematographic and Directorial Independent Spirit nominations.

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Saving Silverman (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005KA6U.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Wayne, J.D., and Darren have been friends, and Neil Diamond fanatics, for as long as they can remember. However, when Darren meets and falls in love with viciously spiteful psychologist named Judith, it's J.D. and Wayne's responsibility to see to it that their relationship comes to an end.

Comments: Not at all what I was expecting. I had heard good things from some friends who have a relatively varied taste in movies. I had no knowledge of what the film was about...but for some reason, I went in expecting a bit of intelligent humor. I ended up getting your typical slapstick comedy: physical gags (a guy being attacked by a raccoon), and overblown characters. The worst part...it wasn't even good slapstick.

The storyline was mediocre, and even Jack Black, who's very presence tends to make me giggle like a schoolgirl, couldn't save this movie. The gags simply weren't original enough, or...well, funny enough. The acting and direction weren't all that great, though I never expect them to be, even in intelligent comedies...so that wasn't that big of a shock. There are two saving graces in this movie; Jack Black, and R. Lee Ermey's character, Coach Norton. With this performance, and his role in "Not Another Teen Movie," Ermey's pretty much got the 'humorous coach' role nailed.

Mediocre comedy, at best. Probably not worth your time.

JP's Rating: 4.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Trainspotting (1996):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001XALTG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Renton is deeply immersed in the drug scene. After being busted for shoplifting, his parents help him get on the path to sobriety. However, sobriety doesn't come easy when you're surrounded by drug-addict friends who seem to be hell-bent on self destruction, and your one focus in life is your next hit of heroin.

Comments: I loved this movie. It's one of the best foreign films I've seen (don't be scared off though, it's from the U.K., so it's in English...though subtitles still help at times with the thick Scottish accents). Trainspotting has a bit of everything. Great acting, fresh cinematography, a good storyline, and most impressive...the ability to switch from humor to some of the most powerful scenes in the history of film...all in the blink of an eye.

Requiem for a Dream was the most impressive movie about the effects of drugs that I'd ever seen...until I watched this movie last night. Not that I'm comparing the two, because Requiem has a much more downtrodden, realistic feel to it. The two films haven't much in common outside of their drug-theme. I do feel that anyone who liked Requiem will like Trainspotting. This film's true testament to greatness, though, is the fact that even those who couldn't stomach a realistic film about drugs, such as Requiem for a Dream, can still hold out hope for Trainspotting.

Fresh, well acted...realistic and touching, yet humorous and enjoyable...Trainspotting is the complete package. Check it out if you've never seen it.

Awards & Nominations:
1997 Academy Award Nomination - Best Adapted Screenplay
1997 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Breakthrough Performance (Ewan McGregor)
Numerous European Awards (Empire Awards UK, London Critics Circle, etc)

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #203)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

12 Monkeys (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/078322608X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: In the year 1996, an unknown virus killed five billion people. In the year 2035, only 1% of the world's population is left...and all have been forced underground, abandoning the surface of the earth for fear of their lives. Unable to change the past, but in an attempt to gather information about the virus (and hopefully a pure sample through which an antidote can be discovered), a convict is sent back in time. However, when he's sent back to 1990 instead of 1996, he's quickly thrown into a mental institute due to his outrageous claims. Unfortunately for him, the world lies in the palm of his hands, because his claims that he is from the future are all true. Or are they?

Comments: Well, I watched three movies last night. One comedy, one drama (the last two films that I reviewed), and 12 Monkeys...a science fiction film. Typically, science fiction is my least favorite genre. I just enjoy movies more if they seem realistic to me...if they're something that I can relate to. This movie, however, was my second favorite film of the night (to Trainspotting, even though both are going to receive the same rating). This movie held a hint of realism that you don't often find in science fiction films...and that definitely appealed to me.

I think there's a reason why this film is as good as it is. It's brilliant because it's based on brilliance. This movie is largely inspired (in story) by a 1962 short film titled "La Jetée." The story is such a good one that I am seriously considering paying fifteen to twenty bucks for a DVD of short films solely to see the 28 minute La Jetée (the other 6 or 7 shorts on the DVD are mediocre, at best). The subject matter draws forth thoughts that I can't quite wrap my head around. This is something I am particularly thankful for...and something that movies are typically incapable of doing.

This films greatness is only magnified by it's all star cast, including Bruce Willis, and a phenomenal performance by Brad Pitt that (paired with his small role in True Romance) assured me that he's more than just a pretty Hollywood face. Another key to my enjoyment of this film was an hour and a half long documentary that I watched shortly after, titled The Hamster Factor (it's included on the special edition DVD, and I highly recommend it). It was an extremely surprising addition to a great movie...as it's one of the best making-of documentaries that I've ever had the pleasure of viewing.

To sum it all up...this is a great thinking man's science fiction movie, made greater by a brilliant director (Terry Gilliam), a mind-blowing cast, and a surprisingly good documentary as a DVD extra. Definitely worth seeing. One of the best films of 1995, one of the better science fiction films I've ever seen, and one of the most powerful conclusions in the history of cinema.

Awards & Nominations:
1996 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Pitt)
1996 Academy Award Nomination - Best Costume Design
1996 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Pitt)
1996 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Male Performance (Pitt)

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #200)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Jackie Brown (1997):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000068DBD.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Jackie Brown is a flight attendant who has just been arrested by a detective and an A.D.F. agent for smuggling $50,000 cash into America. However, it's not her that the officers are after, it's her arms-dealer boss, Ordell Robbie. Jackie now has an unappealing choice to make: either keep her mouth shut and serve a stint in prison, or assist the law enforcement officers and run the risk of being killed by her short-fused, gun-running acquaintance. Then again, maybe...just maybe, with the help of Max, her bail bondsman, she can avoid prosecution, Ordell, and make a half a million dollars in the process.

Comments: Most won't agree with me when I say this...but this is my second favorite Quentin Tarantino film behind, of course, Pulp Fiction. Reservoir Dogs is a very, very close third, but I prefer Jackie Brown for a number of reasons, the main one being the fact that it doesn't have to try as hard to be ambiguous. Jackie Brown manages to lay it all out there for you, and still keep you captivated, a task not that easily accomplished in today's movies.

The cast is a great one, with Samuel L. Jackson, Robert De Niro, Robert Forster, Pam Grier, Michael Keaton, and more. The acting is strong all around, though Forster is the film's true strength with the best performance that I've seen out of him yet. I do feel that Robert De Niro was wasted in this film, playing the role of a background character that doesn't really cater to his acting abilities. However, it was great to see him in a Tarantino film, regardless of the role.

The story, dialogue, and direction are typical Tarantino, though the pacing isn't what you typically see out of him (this film focuses more on character development, and moves quite a bit slower than Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and even Kill Bill volume 2). While the film has a definite Tarantino feel in it's direction, he does throw in a bit of fresh cinematography that I haven't seen out of him (ie: the scene where Beaumont is shot, or where Max knocks at Jackie's door the morning after getting her out of prison).

Jackie Brown is a good action flic with relatively strong character depth. Typically great dialogue from Quentin, paired with fresh direction...if you enjoyed Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, I'm quite certain that you'll enjoy Jackie Brown too. Along with the last movie I reviewed (12 Monkeys), Jackie Brown is one of the more underrated flics out there. Certainly worth seeing.

Awards & Nominations:
1998 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Robert Forster)
1998 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor, Comedy/Musical (Samuel L. Jackson)
1998 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actress, Comedy/Musical (Pam Grier)
1998 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Male Performance (Jackson)

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Pi (1998):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/078401213X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Max Cohen is a brilliant but paranoid mathematician who’s obsessed with finding a numeric pattern in life, and, more specifically, in the stock market. The fact that Max is plagued by hallucination-inducing headaches he’s had since he was a small child, and his lingering inability to connect with anyone other than his mentor, make things all that much more difficult. However antisocial he may be...brilliance simply doesn’t come without company. His theories on stocks catch the attention of some Wall Street personalities that will stop at nothing to uncover a profitable pattern behind the market...and Lenny, a member of a cabalistic sect, needs Max’s help uncovering mathematical mysteries in the Torah. Can he find what he’s looking for before his migraines, paranoia, and over-determined acquaintances get the best of him?

Comments: This is an absolutely brilliant psychological thriller, and a praiseworthy low-budget effort by writer/director Darren Aronofsky of “Requiem for a Dream” fame. I was extremely captivated by the story...and I can’t even begin to express my appreciation for the mathematical theme, and the accuracy with which it was portrayed. It’s obvious that Aronofsky, along with co-writers Sean Gullette and Eric Watson, either have a lot of experience in the field of mathematics...or went to painstaking lengths researching the field for this film. Speaking of Gullette...he played the lead role, and was jaw-dropping in doing so. I was seriously taken back by the thought that this amazing performance came out of a guy who doesn’t have anything noteworthy to his name outside of this film (and a small supporting role in Aronofsky’s “Requiem”).

This movie certainly isn’t to everyone’s taste...but I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I don’t know of many people who have seen it and didn’t like it. Be warned, it’s quite obvious that it was shot on a low budget, and it’s all filmed in black and white...so if you absolutely need color to enjoy a movie, this isn’t the film for you (though, that type of movie-goer isn’t really the type to appreciate a smart, psychological thriller, anyway).

Awards & Nominations:
1998 Sundance Film Festival - Director’s Award (Aronofsky)
1998 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Big Lebowski (1998):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007ELEL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The Dude comes home from the grocery store to find two thugs waiting for him in his apartment. It seems they’ve mistaken him for a millionaire, also named Lebowski, that owes their boss a substantial amount of money. To send a message, one of them takes a leak on The Dude’s rug...and that rug like, brought the whole room together. So, naturally, The Dude seeks some restitution...and ends up getting himself, and his bowling buddies, into a lot more than he had bargained for.

Comments: One of the best comedies I’ve ever seen, with two of the greatest characters of all time. The Dude or Walter could walk up to me and inform me that my entire family had just died in a plane crash...and I’d likely burst out laughing. I don’t know who was in charge of casting...but they did a hell of a job. After years of growing up watching Roseanne, and three or four viewings of The Big Lebowski...John Goodman is, and always will be, Walter. The same goes for Jeff Bridges. No matter what other movie I see him in, he’ll still be The Dude.

The movie’s plot is absolutely classic. The Coen brothers really outdid themselves with this one. If they’d never done Fargo, this would be considered their masterpiece. It’s a hilarious movie (though I suppose it might take a certain sense of humor), and it really dabbles a bit in every genre. The Big Lebowski isn’t a movie...it’s a way of life.

Everyone should see this movie. Yeah, well y'know... that's just like, uh... my opinion, man.

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #223)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Napoleon Dynamite (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002LDKYA.01-A2X3FMBNSRPS6U.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: "Napoleon, what're you doing today?" "Whatever I want, GOSH!" Set in small-town Idaho...this movie follows it's off-beat, nerdy, title character through a month or two of his life. From his interaction at home with his grandmother, his brother Kip, and his uncle Rico...to his encounters at school with his new friend Pedro (who has decided to run for student body president against Summer, one of the most popular girls in school).

Comments: Quite possibly the funniest movie I've ever seen. Office Space gives it some competition, but this movie was at least moderately funny throughout...while Office Space had side-splitting antics spread through the film...and a bit of "serious" plot tying them together. Not sure which I appreciate more: "chuckle chuckle" the entire time, or "omfghahahah" part of the time. Either way, this is one of the two funniest movies that I've ever seen.

Aside from the great humor, the film is put together really well, and actually does have something that kinda sorta might resemble something that could possibly be mistaken for a plot (tough to do when you're making people laugh with every single frame). The opening credits were probably the most innovative I've seen in any film, and totally set the tone for the movie that was to come. The acting was good. Not Marlon Brando-in-The-Godfather-good...but still good in it's own way. The direction by Jared Hess was great, especially considering it was his first full-length film.

I can't wait for the DVD to come out, because I want to watch it many times without having to pay ridiculous theater prices (doubled by the fact that if you're going to the movies, you may as well take a lovely lady with you). Anyway, see this movie. If you don't think it's funny, tell me, so that I know not to talk to you ever, ever again.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Taking Lives (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMWP.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An FBI profiler is called in to help Canadian law enforcement investigate a serial killer who assumes the identities of his victims. At a virtual dead-end...the case takes a turn for the better when a man bears witness to a crime of the same M.O.

Comments: This movie does one thing well: it uses so many cliches that the viewer isn't likely to notice how many past films it's stealing from. I kid you not, from the opening credits on, this movie looked like a sequel to the movie Se7en (and not a good, Rocky-style sequel...but a really bad, Cruel Intentions-style sequel). It even blatantly copped the style in which Se7en ran it's opening credits. Have you no shame, D.J. Caruso? Apparently not...after all, you did accept the directing job for "Taking Lives" in the first place. I can only hope, for your sake, that you hadn't read the script prior to doing so.

The opening credits and overall tone of the movie aren't the only things stolen in this film. The entire premise can be summed up as follows: "Boy, The Talented Mr. Ripley was a pretty good movie. Saaaayy, why don't I take that plot, and dress is up as a cop movie?" Then there is the original material (and I use that term very loosely, since it's "original" in every other Hollywood movie, also). You have the unlikely romance between characters, you have the car chase, and you have the "let's send her into this room alone...OH, I know, she's in the room alone AND the lights don't work. Brilliant!"

The acting was, at it's highest point, tolerable. The films lone chance for a bright spot (the always entertaining Kiefer Sutherland) was wasted here in a very small role. Oh, and as we all know, every suspense/murder mystery has to have a plot twist. This one was about as predictable as they come (though it was actually a relief to see, because the hour or so leading up to it would qualify as the worst movie of all time had the writers not at least attempted to surprise the audience). There's another twist that I will admit caught me off guard, but by then the movie was so far lost that it didn't even much matter.

I won't even get into the plot holes...you'd be reading this post for about as long as it would take you to go watch the movie. The only reason I can think to recommend this film is if you just really want to see a spicy Angelina Jolie love scene. Wait, on second thought...I'm sure you can just download it off the internet. I'd avoid this movie altogether. If you flat-out don't believe me, at least get the Unrated Director's Cut. You'll be happy you milked every second out of the sex scene, since it's the film's only redeeming quality.

JP's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Twisted (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00029RT9E.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Jessica's father was a good cop, until one day he went on a killing spree that ended with him taking his own life. Now she's a cop herself, investigating her first homicide. The crazy thing? She actually slept with the victim one night not too long ago. It's not long before people she's been intimate with start dropping like flies...and due to blackouts she's been having, she becomes the prime suspect in her own investigation.

Comments: Wow. No, seriously...wow. Not the good kind of wow, either. Brace yourselves, you're about to go on a ride through "JP's how not to make a thriller." Be warned, though, these comments may contain mild, ambiguous spoilers (as in, I'm going to speak about the plot devices used in this movie, and the plot itself in rather telltale detail...but I won't come out and say "OMG so-and-so did it!"). So, my spoilers will only take effect if you actually see the movie, and are gullible enough to have fallen for the numerous cheap ploys used in “Twisted.” However, please note that you'll be thankful that you read this review in it's entirety, because the mild spoilers won't have any bearing on you once you've decided to avoid this God-awful excuse for a movie. Either way, you’ve been warned.

So, on to my "how not to" seminar. First things first...if you're going to make a mystery, don't single the killer out in any blatant way...and definitely don't single them out in numerous blatant ways. Trust me...if you avoid my strong advice and go out to see this film, you're bound to notice the "singled-out character" that I'm referring to. Typically, my comments here wouldn't be a spoiler. They wouldn't give away the "twist." However, this movie so blatantly singles one person out from everyone else (even going as far as to shoot the majority of his scenes in the bright, happy daylight...while most interactions with other characters take place in darker, indoor or nighttime settings). The writers also purposely drew out a trusting, long-term relationship between the killer and the protagonist (as if the audience is going to be like, "awww, well it could never be him.") So...point one: do not do this.

Point two: don't try too hard to convince your audience that multiple characters may be the killer. You'll end up casting everyone in a suspicious light except, of course, the actual killer (because, hey, if you cast him in the same suspicious tone as everyone else...well, that would ruin the surprise). Audiences are smarter than filmmakers give them credit for. They're not going to sit back and say, "Wow, he’s the only one not doing creepy killer-like things. Well, at least I know he’s not the bad guy. Phew.” The filmmakers even went out of their way to try and convince the audience that the protagonist is the antagonist (in fact, that's the entire plot of this film).

Third thing: in a suspenseful drama, it's usually a good idea to have some suspense. You know, at least every once in a while. Maybe I'm just a demanding filmgoer, though. I dunno. Anyway, I really don't want to keep going with my "how not to" seminar. I think I've made my point. If I haven't, I'll make my point as simply as I know how: by telling you that I figured out who the killer was 9 minutes into the movie. I'm not exaggerating in the least. I looked at the DVD player when I got my first inkling, and it read 9 minutes and some change. As things went on, my suspicion only grew stronger, until it was finally proven correct.

I don't know why, but I always seem to give the longest reviews to the shittiest movies. Perhaps it's so I can be certain that you know to avoid them. I'll break it all down right here: the acting is the worst I've seen out of any of these big-name, typically respectable stars...but it's not their fault. It's thanks to what is quite possibly the worst screenplay I've ever seen...paired with some of the worst direction in recent memory. This movie is receiving the lowest score I've given in 80 or so film reviews. I give it a 1.0 only because I'm saving the dreaded 0.0 for "Homicidal Hamsters from Honolulu," or some other travesty of film that I might, on an off chance, someday see.

Avoid this movie at all costs...unless you want to have a Mystery Science Theater 3000 type session with some friends (pretty much what we did tonight). I’m sad. Three recent, 2004 movie reviews in a row, and two have been pitiful. Godsend is going to be tomorrow night’s reviewed film, maybe it can pick up the pace and give Napoleon Dynamite something that resembles competition (though, judging by the low rating on IMDB, I’m not holding my breath).

JP's Rating: 1.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 4.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Godsend (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002DRDQE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: One day after his 8th birthday, Adam is hit and killed by a car. His distraught parents decide to take Dr. Richard Wells up on his offer...and have their son cloned. Things take a bizarre turn when the cloned son reaches the exact age at which the original Adam was killed...and is plagued by hunting dreams and other psychological abnormalities.

Comments: I went in wary of a 4.5 rating on IMDB.com...an extremely low rating for any movie (considering a 3.4 will get you on IMDB's bottom 100 list). I must say, I was pleasantly surprised with the movie that I saw. Don't mistake that comment for, "this movie was great." It wasn't, by any means..but it certainly wasn't as bad of a movie as I had expected. In fact, it was so mediocre that it saddens me to see the roles that Robert DeNiro is accepting these days. I was saddened even more by his lackluster performance. He carried the weight of movies like The Godfather II, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, etc. Now he's accepting a role like this one, and turning in a relatively weak performance on top of that? It's a damn shame, indeed.

Greg Kinnear and Cameron Bright (the child-actor) were this film's bright spots as far as acting go, but neither were anywhere near memorable. As for the movie itself...it's quite contrived. I will admit, I rather enjoyed the first hour or so of the film. However, once the twist was revealed, things quickly went downhill...to the point that I honestly wish I would have fallen asleep two thirds of the way through, and preserved a better memory of this film than what I'm left with. There are 4 or 5 alternate endings on the DVD. I haven't watched them, but I guarantee you that at least three of them have to be better than the ending the filmmakers decided to go with.

There were some good, tense, relatively scary moments. There was a bit of decent direction here and there (though, as with nearly everything else in the movie, the direction as a whole was pretty mediocre). The movie had a good bit of potential. The basic premise is a great one. However, I think the film's true weakness is it's screenplay. Quite a bit of repetitiveness throughout the movie, contrived dialogue, and a conclusion so weak that that I'm not surprised to discover that there are about a half dozen alternate endings (meaning that my suspicions are correct: the writer simply didn't know how to end the story). I can't fault DeNiro for his performance...as he really wasn't given much to work with.

Godsend is a decent little movie with quite a few jump-worthy, suspenseful moments. However, it's not a film that I will see again anytime soon, if ever. I've reviewed so many great films here...I would hope you could find a better film than this one to pass your time with. Only recommended for those of you who are interested in seeing the work of a particular cast or crew member, or those of you with a heightened interest in the subject of cloning (though if you're seeing it for the latter, be warned that there is a serious shortage of science in this movie, and you're just expected to have the mindset that "this is possible because it's a movie." Not much is explained, scientifically).

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 4.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Boyz N the Hood (1991):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000A7W14.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This portrayal of life on the streets takes place in inner-city Los Angeles, and follows the stories of three friends who grew up together. Troublemaker Doughboy, and focused athlete Ricky, are brothers with different approaches regarding how they intend to deal with the life they were born into. Their friend and neighbor, Tre, is lucky enough to have a father who's willing to teach him the difference between right and wrong, in hopes that his son will someday become somebody.

Comments: I believe this movie deserves a spot near the bottom of IMDB.com's top 250 list. It was truly groundbreaking, tackling a subject that was relatively unspoken in the cinema during it's time. It's got an agenda, and though I adamantly disagree with what the film is saying in some of it's subtext, I can respect the boldness it must have taken to make a movie of this caliber in the early 90's (in the heat of police brutality and gang wars, among other things). This film paved the way for other great films dealing with the societal woes in our nation and life in the ghetto.

The acting is top-notch. Cuba Gooding Jr. is remarkable in his first ever lead role, and shows the astounding amount of potential that he goes on to fill with films like Men of Honor and A Few Good Men. Lawrence Fishburne gives the best performance I've seen of him to date (just don't tell those Matrix fanatics). The supporting cast keeps right up, including a performance by Ice Cube that truly caught me off guard.

The direction is strong, including a couple of extremely memorable and emotional scenes of violence. This is one of my favorite movies about life on the streets (behind City of God)...and it is easily John Singleton's best film. Certainly worth seeing, for those of you who haven't. Just don't be turned off by some of the stereotypes and political agendas that were pushed. I feel that they were overblown in an attempt to send a message to an early-90's America...coming straight from the mind of a man who grew up in the slums of L.A.

Awards & Nominations:
1992 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (John Singleton)
1992 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
1992 MTV Movie Award - Best New Filmmaker (Singleton)
1992 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Picture

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Altered States (1980):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305133131.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: Dr. Jessup, a Harvard Scientist, is conducting experiments on himself about altered states of consciousness. Things start with multi-hour experiences in isolation chambers. However, when Jessup makes a trip to Mexico and partakes in a ritual with a group of Native Americans...he sparks an idea. He takes a sizable serving of the hallucination-inducing potion home, and mixes the drug with the chamber. The result: he actually thinks that his hallucinations are taking on a physical form...that he is genetically regressing. However, that can't be the case. He's just going crazy from the large doses of hallucinogens. ...right?

Comments: Let me start be explaining something. In the 1960's through the 70's, and a touch into the 80's...sensory deprivation chambers were about as prevalent as tanning salons are today (I'm exaggerating a bit, but they were plentiful). As the name implies...these chambers deprive your body of all senses. You lie awake, floating atop a saltwater solution, in totally isolated darkness. You can't feel, see, or hear anything. The idea is that your body, in this state...lacking all sensory stimulation, creates it's own stimuli. In effect, your body creates sights, sounds, and so on and so forth. In short: you get a hell of a natural trip, without having to take any drugs...and you can be brought out of it at any time you like by simply opening the door to the chamber, and exposing your body to non-artificial sensory stimuli (light, noises, etc).

With that said, this movie wasn't nearly as good as I had hoped for. I've been wanting to see it since my freshman year in college (about 2 years ago). I had a sociology professor who, when explaining the workings of our body, went into the details of sensory deprivation chambers...and mentioned this movie. I thought, hm...a guy on some ridiculously potent shrooms, going through the experiences of a sensory deprivation chamber. Sounds like a really interesting movie.

Interesting, it was. Good, though? Not so much. There was some great imagery...and considering that it was made 24 years ago in 1980 (pre-CGI), the special effects are mind boggling. The movie was truly revolutionary in it's time. However, it lacks in pretty much every other department. The acting is good at parts, and so bad at parts that I found myself concentrating on the actors...and not on the storyline. Speaking of the storyline, I think it went a bit too far off the deep end. It left the realm of reality, and if the film is about a subject that I have much interest in...that typically takes me out of the movie totally.

The direction wasn't very good at all. Like I said, there was some good imagery, but it could have been done much, much better than it was...and the director could have evoked much better acting sequences from a relatively strong cast (including William Hurt in his first major movie, Bob Balaban, and...believe it or not, a 5-year old Drew Barrymore in her first major motion picture).

To help you grasp what I'm talking about, consider this: the film's writer (Paddy Chayefsky) took his name off the project because he wasn't happy with the way in which his story was being portrayed. The screenplay is credited to Sidney Aaron (Chayefsky's first and middle names at birth). That act pretty much sums up my thoughts on the film as well. It was a great premise that could have been a great movie...but ended up being a mediocre film that was, at times, difficult to watch. Recommended for the story only...just don't expect much.

Awards & Nominations:
1981 Academy Award Nomination - Best Musical Score
1981 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
1981 Golden Globe Nomination - Best New Male Star (William Hurt)

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Mean Streets (1973):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000286RP2.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Charlie's future is relatively uncertain. He's a small-time hood, claiming overdue debts for his revered uncle. His uncle is optimistic about plans to give Charlie a local neighborhood restaurant. However, those plans might not become reality if his uncle finds out that Charlie has been running around with people that he doesn't approve of: a love interest with epilepsy, and her cousin, Johnny Boy...a borderline psychotic trouble-maker that Charlie is intent on helping.

Comments: One of Martin Scorsese's masterworks, up there with the likes of Taxi Driver, Casino, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas. As I see more and more of his films, Scorsese continues to secure his spot as my favorite director of all time. Every writer and/or director has a style all their own...and Scorsese is no different. Like Gus Van Sant's pacing and scenery, Kevin Smith's sharply adolescent dialogue, or Quentin Tarantino's constant homage to films of the past...Scorsese's pictures can be easily recognized as his own due to his wonderful use of music and voice-over, his darker (sometimes red-filtered) camerawork, his use of slow motion, his lengthy one-shot sequences, and of course, his typical rough streets of New York subject matter.

The best thing about his trademarks? They work. They work really, really well...and they sure as hell worked in Mean Streets. Aside from his great direction, there's a wonderful story in Mean Streets, and the characters are portrayed with nearly flawless execution by Robert DeNiro and, to a lesser extent, Harvey Keitel. Given Keitel's brilliant performance...that speaks volumes about the job DeNiro did in this movie. The film moves a bit slowly at first, but once it's all said and done, you're well aware that Martin Scorsese knows quite well how to introduce and develop a character.

The film is strong, with brilliant performances all around, typically great direction, and a captivating story. If you're a fan of Robert DeNiro, Harvey Keitel, Martin Scorsese, or cinema in general...you have to see Mean Streets.

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Who's That Knocking at My Door? (1967):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000286RPM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: J.R., an Italian-American living in the heart of New York City, is content to spend all day and night hanging out with his friends. One day, though, he meets and becomes involved with a local girl, and decides that he wants to get married and settle down. However, when she informs him that she was once raped, his plans aren't as set in stone as they once were.

Comments: In most film circles, Mean Streets is known as Martin Scorsese's first film. While it's true that Mean Streets is the film that put him on the map, it's not his first film. Who's That Knocking at My Door debuted in 1967, written and directed by a 25-year old Scorsese, and starring a 28-year old Harvey Keitel. The first full-length motion picture to involve either of these great talents, this film is truly remarkable to watch. It's rough around the edges at times...but there are scenes in it that clearly point to the greatness that was to come. Keitel gives a very convincing first performance...and Scorsese shows that his trademark style has been a part of his filmmaking vision from day one.

While it's nowhere near being Keitel's best role or Scorsese's best picture...I can honestly say that I enjoyed it as much as (if not more than) their more renowned works. If you're a fan of Scorsese's work, this is truly a must see. It gives you a great idea of how a filmmaker evolves, yet sticks with what works. Same can be said for Harvey Keitel...his performance shows that acting truly is an art, a talent that can be polished and refined, but a talent that true stars possess from day one.

Despite a handful of powerful, sometimes difficult to watch scenes of violence and emotional abuse...Who's That Knocking was one of the most enjoyable film experiences of my life. Above all else, it gives astounding insight into the evolution of great actors and directors. Well worth your time.

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Heat (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000JGHM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Set in Los Angeles, this movie tells the stories of two main characters, and a host of secondary characters. The story focuses on Neil, one of the best thieves around, as he and his crew plot and carry out many high risk, and high paying scores. However, hot on their tail is an equally cunning and educated detective named Vincent Hanna. As things progress, their families are as caught up in their game of cat-and-mouse as they are (emotionally, at least).

Comments: Forget everything you ever thought you knew about the police/robber genre. This movie defies all cliches...breaks all of the rules of the trade. It has sharp acting, deep character development, and superb direction. It takes you in directions you least expect...but none of it is forced, contrived, or done solely to draw "oooh's and ahhh's" from the audience. There are no highly intricate, once in a lifetime jewel thefts, meticulously woven with layers of plotting and numerous role-players (a'la Ocean's Eleven or Confidence). There aren't any unrealistic high speed chases, or 8-minute long fist fights that result in no real physical damage.

However, this movie doesn't sacrifice action for plot. It brilliantly combines the two into what is quite possibly the best cops and robbers film to ever come out of Hollywood. In fact, not only does it keep away from bullet-flying, edge of your seat action...it uses it as brilliantly as any film before, or since. About 3/4's of the way through the film, you will witness the most masterful, albeit overblown, sequence of action that I've seen in any movie, ever.

Even given that, though...this film's true strength lies in it's characters. Heat does a superb job of drawing an extremely difficult picture: the similarities between good guy and bad guy. The viewer feels for both, and it's mostly for the same reasons. Every character here is so well drawn that as you close in on the film's final sequence, you want everyone to win. This attachment to the characters wouldn't be possible without typically strong performances from both Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. These iconic actors have been in two movies together (this film, and The Godfather II). In total, they've spent about ten minutes across one another on screen. None of these sequences (every one of which occur in this film) let the viewer down. It's truly a pleasure to see these two heavyweights counter one another on screen, as each actor seems to bring out the best in the other.

I'm sure I could go on for another three or four paragraphs...but I won't bother. Pacino and DeNiro are great, as usual. Michael Mann shows that he deserves every bit of acclaim he's gotten as a writer/director. Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Ashley Judd, Tom Sizemore, and a young Natalie Portman are all great. Strong film all around. Definitely worth all three hours of your time.

Awards & Nominations:
1996 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Most Desirable Male (Val Kilmer)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.9/10 (Top 250 - #244)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Punisher (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002IQMAM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Frank Castle is set to work his last field job as an undercover operative...after which he, his wife, and his son are set to move to London, where Castle has a much safer desk job awaiting him. However, things go awry at his final undercover gig, and bullets start to fly. One of them takes out a suspect, who happens to be the son of a wealthy crime boss named Howard Saint. Saint gets his revenge by sending a crew of hit men to Castle's family reunion. The story doesn't end there, though. Castle (who you should note has no superpowers) survives the attack, builds an arsenal, and prepares for war.

Comments: One of the better comic book movies I've seen (of the recent batch, that is). Not as good as Spiderman 2...up there with Spiderman 1 and both X-Men movies, better than The Hulk and Daredevil. Some of the dialogue was corny...to the extent that it crossed from the realm of cheesy comic-book to the realm of cheesy Hollywood, and that's never a good thing. The action was decent, though the movie was nowhere near as action-packed as you'd expect going in.

Good acting from Thomas Jane, below average from Travolta (below his average, so still decent), and Rebecca Romijn was her typical wooden self (after-effects from all those years of modeling, I suppose). Cinematography and direction were decent, yet typical. Nothing innovative...just safe (the way big-budget production companies like it).

The storyline was great stuff. People dislike this movie because Thomas Jane's character wasn't the usual "kickin' ass and takin' names" Punisher. However, they need to realize that this is the point of the movie. He's not The Punisher, at least not yet. He's just a bad motherfucker who's coping with the loss of his family, and has set out to get revenge. So, of course emotions are going to play a part, and you can't be surprised when he plays psychological games with the men he's hunting down. He's not The Punisher in this flic, but he sure as hell will be in the next one (and judging by the ending of this movie, you should trust me when I say that there will be a next one).

Worth seeing if you're a fan of the actors, or a fan of comic book characters. Trust me, though, when I say that this film's saving grace is the fact that it's based on a comic book. Were it not, I would have been much, much more critical of the cliched cheesy dialogue, and the mediocre acting and direction.

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Very Bad Things (1998):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007ELER.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Kyle is about to get married to Laura, a woman who wants nothing more than the perfect marriage and an ideal, white-picket fence life. As we all know, what comes before a man takes the plunge? A bachelor party, of course. So, Kyle and his closest friends head off to Las Vegas...a group of guys out for a wild night. Things go wrong, though, when the "entertainment" is accidentally killed. Now there's a choice to make: call the police and face the wrath of a dead prostitute in a room filled with drugs and alcohol, or cover up the incident...at any cost.

Comments: I suppose this movie is a guilty pleasure of mine. Most people who see it absolutely hate it. It's in the $5.00 section at Best Buy with the likes of ‘3 Ninjas’ and ‘Mr. Nanny’. However, I thought it was astoundingly funny, and accomplished everything it intended to, and more.

What people have to realize is that this movie is a dark comedy. It is the very definition of dark comedy. It makes Tarantino's dark comedy look like an afternoon in Mister Roger's Neighborhood. Perhaps I'm just twisted, but I love this type of very, very dark comedy. Christian Slater's character is the lowest of the low, and I can't help but break into tear-inducing laughter at the way his sadistic mind works.

I guess I'll use that as a segue into my comments about the film's most basic qualities. Great performance by Slater, good performances from Jon Favreau, Jeremy Piven, and Daniel Stern. Extremely amateurish performance by Cameron Diaz, who overacted her part to the point that it took away from the movie a bit. Everyone else was decent, though forgettable. Direction and whatnot were nothing noteworthy, but didn't detract from the film at all. The screenplay is the film's true strong point.

This movie certainly isn't for everyone. I'd also say that it's probably not going to appeal to 90% of the females out there. However, if you have an appreciation for dark humor, and you can recognize the fact that this is just an entertaining flic with no intentions of making a groundbreaking statement about the nature of man...it's probably a movie that you'll enjoy.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

25th Hour (2002):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008K7AO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Caught by the DEA with a kilo of illegal narcotics, and a hefty bundle of cash...Montgomery Brogan has been sentenced to a minimum of 7 years in prison. Tomorrow, the clock starts counting down the days which he will spend locked in a jail cell. So, Monty has 24 hours to reevaluate his life, relationships, and to ponder how he got himself into this life-altering mess.

Comments: This is one of my personal favorites. Now, it's important to note that Edward Norton is in my top 5 favorite actors, and he's my favorite of the relatively new wave of young guys hitting the big screen. There hasn't been a Norton movie yet that I haven't enjoyed, and quite a few of them would hold a spot in my top 100 or 150. He becomes this character, and plays the part with such a fervor, such a passion...that I honestly can't even begin to picture anybody else portraying Monty Brogan. He does this in all of his movies, from Primal Fear to The Score, American History X to Fight Club, and everything in-between.

Outside of Norton's typically brilliant performance, this film stands strong in all other aspects. Outside of an undeveloped character and a bit too much length (both of which I'll touch on later), the screenplay and story don't leave much to be desired. The direction is typical Spike Lee. He has a wonderful way of raising the bar...pushing those around him to heights that they might not have otherwise reached.

The cinematography is outstanding. Most people go see a movie because it involves a favorite actor, writer, or director. I'm reaching a point where I am going to start seeing every movie which cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto has a hand in producing. Amores Perros, 21 Grams, 25th Hour...all brilliant cinematographic work. Even mediocre films like Original Sin and 8 Mile have surprisingly standout cinematography because of this man. The often unique POV that his shots provide is remarkable, and I'm a huge fan of the freshness he brings to a picture with his camera tricks (so minor that they don't overwhelm, but they have a way of drawing you into the film).

The films flaws were touched on earlier. Most lie in it's screenplay and editing. This is an obvious first attempt for screenwriter David Benioff, who took the job of adapting his own novel. Don't get me wrong, he did a stellar job (good enough to earn him steady work in Hollywood, writing the screenplay for the recent blockbuster Troy, and a couple of upcoming films). However, he just didn't do a good enough job of drawing his secondary characters (namely, the relationship between Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character and Anna Paquin's character). I also feel that he (alongside the editors) let a few scenes roll on longer than they needed to. This totally threw off the film's pacing at times, and wasn't at all necessary.

To sum it up: great story backed with a strong screenplay. Wonderful musical score. Stellar acting from Ed Norton, and a great supporting job by everyone involved (especially Hoffman, Paquin, Brian Cox, Rosario Dawson, and Barry Pepper). Typically strong direction by Spike Lee, resulting in two extremely powerful, potentially breathtaking scenes that are forever etched in my memory (the "Fuck You" scene, and the "Make me ugly" scene). 25th hour is certainly worth seeing...no matter who you are, or what your taste in films.

Awards & Nominations:
2003 Golden Globes - Best Score

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Johnny English (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JM20.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: All but one of Britain's secret service agents are killed in an explosion. When, only days later, the crown jewels are stolen...the case is left in the hands of the only agent left alive...the inept Johnny English, and his assistant Bough. Do they have what it takes to recover the jewels and thwart the plans of the evil Pascal Sauvage? Probably not.

Comments: This is nothing more than a typical Rowan Atkinson comedy (a'la Rat Race and Mr. Bean). Think of what you would get if you combined James Bond and a poor-man's Naked Gun. Now, you've probably got the idea of what Johnny English has to offer. A lot of situational and physical humor, but (unlike the Naked Gun series) not too much in the way of witty dialogue.

The plot was what you'd expect in a modern-day slapstick comedy: nothing more than background play to the physical humor. There are plot holes and dozens of improbabilities. I didn't expect an intricate storyline from this low-grade comedy, but they could have at least made it look like they tried.

Ah well. It's good for a smile and maybe a chuckle here and there, but not much more. Definitely nothing worth going out of your way to see. If you happen to catch it on HBO (as I did), and you're in a forgiving mood (as I was), you might find a redeeming quality or two. For me, it was seeing the always impressive John Malkovich in a rather silly role. I don't know...to each his own. Personally, I'd find something else to watch if I were you.

JP's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Primal Fear (1996):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305127697.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An archbishop is murdered in grisly fashion, and a young alter boy is caught running from the scene of the crime, covered in the victim's blood. Slick, hotshot defense attorney Martin Vail decides to take the seemingly open and shut case, with hopes to increase his fanfare by adequately defending a man who everyone has written off as the obvious perpetrator in one of the most media-frenzied homicides in recent memory.

Comments: This movie was, for years, atop my list of favorite films. I first saw it when I was 12 or 13 years old. I've since seen it another half a dozen times or so. Not until recently (as I began to watch many more films) was it bumped from it's spot as my favorite film, and even from my top 10. However, it will forever be my first true, favorite film. For that reason alone, I might be a bit biased in writing this review. That is, of course, assuming it's possible to hold a favorable bias in regard to a spectacular film.

There are many reasons why I love this film. One of them is the story and the direction. I don't dislike court movies...but very rarely do they hold my attention as firmly as Primal Fear consistently manages to. The entire feel, or 'tone' of the movie is captivating. The pacing is wonderful, and garners more appreciation with multiple viewings. That is to say that, watching this film and knowing what's going to happen...I never find myself sitting there thinking about my prior viewings and what's soon to come. I am always so drawn in by the film, by it's constant demand of the viewer's attention, that there is just no time for my mind to wander.

I've saved the best for last, though. One thing that truly makes this film stand out, in my eyes at least, above all other films in it's genre is the acting. Richard Gere is strong, though typical. Not to be negative, because he's good at what he does...he just doesn't have a lot of range. Laura Linney is truly at her best in this film, turning in a performance that, I believe, shines over all other performances I've seen out of her (including Mystic River, Love Actually, The Truman Show, Mothman Prophesies, The Life of David Gale...to name a few). I haven't seen her lone Oscar nominated performance in 'You Can Count on Me,' but from I have seen enough from her to know that she's at the top of her game here. Then there's the always strong Francis McDormand who does well here in her small, supporting role.

Last, but most certainly not least, is Edward Norton. He is one of my top 3 favorite actors (picture for picture) of all time. He is ridiculously talented, and has a range that even the most accomplished of actors can only dream of. From a yuppie turned hardass in Fight Club, to a confused neo-Nazi in American History X, all the way to an over-the-top children's TV-show host in Death to Smoochie...he has consistently played surprisingly varied roles, and pulled all of them off flawlessly. He is, in my opinion, the best actor working today, and (in a couple of decades) could very well be recognized as one of the greatest actors of all time. That said...this is his debut role, and arguably his best ever (it's certainly my favorite). The fact that he did not win the Oscar for his role absolutely and completely blows my mind.

This movie is worth seeing if only for the astounding job that Edward Norton does. He's not the film's lone high-point, though...as it also stands on a strong story, and wonderful direction. Great film all around, and certainly worth your time.

Awards & Nominations:
1997 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Edward Norton)
1997 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Edward Norton)
1997 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Breakthrough Male Performance (Edward Norton)

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Primal Fear (1996):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305127697.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An archbishop is murdered in grisly fashion, and a young alter boy is caught running from the scene of the crime, covered in the victim's blood. Slick, hotshot defense attorney Martin Vail decides to take the seemingly open and shut case, with hopes to increase his fanfare by adequately defending a man who everyone has written off as the obvious perpetrator in one of the most media-frenzied homicides in recent memory.

Comments: This movie was, for years, atop my list of favorite films. I first saw it when I was 12 or 13 years old. I've since seen it another half a dozen times or so. Not until recently (as I began to watch many more films) was it bumped from it's spot as my favorite film, and even from my top 10. However, it will forever be my first true, favorite film. For that reason alone, I might be a bit biased in writing this review. That is, of course, assuming it's possible to hold a favorable bias in regard to a spectacular film.

There are many reasons why I love this film. One of them is the story and the direction. I don't dislike court movies...but very rarely do they hold my attention as firmly as Primal Fear consistently manages to. The entire feel, or 'tone' of the movie is captivating. The pacing is wonderful, and garners more appreciation with multiple viewings. That is to say that, watching this film and knowing what's going to happen...I never find myself sitting there thinking about my prior viewings and what's soon to come. I am always so drawn in by the film, by it's constant demand of the viewer's attention, that there is just no time for my mind to wander.

I've saved the best for last, though. One thing that truly makes this film stand out, in my eyes at least, above all other films in it's genre is the acting. Richard Gere is strong, though typical. Not to be negative, because he's good at what he does...he just doesn't have a lot of range. Laura Linney is truly at her best in this film, turning in a performance that, I believe, shines over all other performances I've seen out of her (including Mystic River, Love Actually, The Truman Show, Mothman Prophesies, and The Life of David Gale...to name a few). I haven't seen her lone Oscar nominated performance in 'You Can Count on Me,' but I have seen enough from her to know that she's at the top of her game here. Then there's the always strong Francis McDormand who does well here in her small, supporting role.

Last, but most certainly not least, is Edward Norton. He is one of my top 3 favorite actors (picture for picture) of all time. He is ridiculously talented, and has a range that even the most accomplished of actors can only dream of. From a yuppie turned hardass in Fight Club, to a confused neo-Nazi in American History X, all the way to an over-the-top children's TV-show host in Death to Smoochie...he has consistently played surprisingly varied roles, and pulled all of them off flawlessly. He is, in my opinion, the best actor working today, and (in a couple of decades) could very well be recognized as one of the greatest actors of all time. That said...this is his debut role, and arguably his best ever (it's certainly my favorite). The fact that he did not win the Oscar for his role absolutely and completely blows my mind.

This movie is worth seeing if only for the astounding job that Edward Norton does. He's not the film's lone high-point, though...as it also stands on a strong story, and wonderful direction. Great film all around, and certainly worth your time.

Awards & Nominations:
1997 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Edward Norton)
1997 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Edward Norton)
1997 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Breakthrough Male Performance (Edward Norton)

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Brazil (1985):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0780022181.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Sam Lowrey works for the ministry of information in a retro-futuristic society. In this society, bureaucracy and totalitarian dictatorship is the norm. When an error in Sam's office leads to a man being wrongfully arrested, Sam goes out of his way to try and mend the damage. He ends up being pulled into a situation in which he must go against the iron-fisted system that he works for.

Comments: Widely regarded as Terry Gilliam's masterpiece, Brazil is the cinematic equivalent of George Orwell's acclaimed novel "1984." Gilliam has such films as 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and '12 Monkeys' under his belt, so the fact that Brazil is considered his masterpiece should give you an idea of how highly regarded this film is. That said, I just wasn't as drawn in by it as I had hoped to be. Don't get me wrong, I think it was a great movie in principle, and it really is a cinematic achievement. The difficulty that must have gone into the production of this film is mind-boggling. With extravagant, retro-futuristic sets and props, Terry Gilliam actually manages to create an alternate, yet somewhat familiar world.

That, in and of itself, is why I didn't enjoy this picture as much as I could have. I appreciate the work that must have gone into creating this odd little alternate society...but I just didn't like it. It was just a bit too far out there for my taste. I think the best comparison I can make here is to required reading in high school. These masterpieces in literature all have great messages, and truly are noteworthy pieces of work that will stand the test of time. However, I never really enjoyed reading them. In much the same way, 'Brazil' is a spectacular piece of work, the cultivation of dozens of ideas and ideals floating around in Gilliam's imaginative mind. In hindsight, I really do appreciate the film. I just didn't enjoy watching it.

Aside from my dislike for the whole feel of the movie (due in large part to the extravagant sets and the cast of quirky, oddball characters), the movie is pretty much flawless. The story is a great one, very Orwellian in nature. The acting is top-notch. The societal commentary and satire are on point. This film presents a great, timeless story in a way that only Terry Gilliam could. I just didn't particularly care for the way it was done. Brazil is worth seeing, if only so you can form your own opinion on a film that is widely considered one of the best of the past few decades.

Awards & Nominations:
1986 Academy Award Nomination - Best Art Direction and Set Decoration
1986 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #182)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Smultronstället (1957):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005UQ7T.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Professor Isak Borg, an elderly doctor, is set to make a trip to Lund University to receive an honorary degree. As he travels, he repeatedly experiences dreams and flashbacks that shine a telling light on the way he's lived his life. He slowly realizes that the choices he's made have left him cold, empty, and ultimately...alone. Nearing death, he realizes that he must take action if he ever hopes to make his dreams of redemption and forgiveness a reality.

Comments: One of Ingmar Bergman's numerous cinematic accomplishments, 'Wild Strawberries' is a touching commentary on social interaction and the things one ponders when nearing the end of their time here on earth. This movie is much like Citizen Kane (accepted in most circles as the best film of all time). Personally, I think this story is more honest, more emotional. Ingmar Bergman shows that movies are more than entertainment; they're an art form.

This movie, and Bergman's filmmaking, are so flawless in nature that Woody Allen pays homage to both with his strikingly similar film 'Deconstructing Harry.' Assuming there is no such thing as a perfect movie, 'Wild Strawberries' comes as close as any film ever has. The story is original, heartfelt, and timeless. The acting is great, and the direction flawless.

The DVD is awesome, with a superb transfer (both the audio and the visuals) and easy to follow subtitles. Criterion deserves their title as producers of the definitive DVD's when it comes to cinematic masterpieces. All in all, this film is the total package: a great, touching story overflowing with symbolism. Great direction, superb acting, and a handful of scenes that are among the best I've seen (such as the first dream sequence). Wild Strawberries is one of Ingmar Bergman's many masterpieces. See it.

Awards & Nominations:
1960 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
1960 Golden Globe - Best Foreign Film

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.4/10 (Top 250 - #136)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Following (1998):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000F3CD.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Bill is an aspiring writer who has a natural curiosity about people. This curiosity gives way to a hobby of sorts for Bill; picking strangers at random and following them. There's no motive for Bill's shadowing of people other than a natural curiosity. He wants to know where people go, what people do. One day, though, he breaks a rule. He follows the same person again. Then again, and again. When he's noticed and confronted by the man, the two form a relationship beyond follower and 'followee.'

Comments: Well, Christopher Nolan is one of my ten favorite filmmakers (along with the likes of Martin Scorsese, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino, Ingmar Bergman, and Kevin Smith, to name a few). He has three full-length films thus far, none of which have let me down; Memento (which is in my top-3 favorite films), Insomnia (a film that I enjoyed, but isn't a personal favorite), and this movie.

Following is a new favorite of mine, likely in my top 50 or so. The film has quite a bit in common with Memento...from it's non-linear timeline, to it's strangely intriguing characters, to it's very well played and captivating story. The acting, while better than average, isn't the film's strongpoint. This film is the type that lives or dies by it's story, and fortunately, the story here is more than strong enough to carry the load.

This is one of the better debut films I've seen from a director, sa it exposed the world to Chris Nolan's potentially superb talent (which was soon confirmed with Memento). If you like sharp dialogue, interesting characters, and an original and intriguing storyline, you'll definitely want to check out Following. It comes with my highest recommendation, as it's something that will likely be enjoyed on at least some level by all types of moviegoers.

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Higher Learning (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JD5J.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: People from all walks of life are forced to integrate when they enroll on the same college campus. Each of them has to deal with their own problems, from a lack of tuition money, to an inability to fit in, to the aftermath of a savage rape. On top of this, there seems to be one universal problem on campus: racism. Already under the pressures of classes, sports, and social relations...students are pushed to the brink by prejudice, inexperience, and misunderstanding.

Comments: All in all, this is a decent movie to watch once or twice, but nothing more than that. That sentence, in and of itself, might be the biggest criticism I can give this film and it's creator. You see, for all of it's effort, Higher Learning just has a shockingly large number of shortcomings. With this film, John Singleton tried overcome his Poetic Justice misstep, and return to the level he reached with his debut film, Boyz N the Hood. Sadly, it seems that perhaps he tried a bit too hard.

For starters, the acting is mediocre at best. Omar Epps is strong for the most part, but he overacts the climactic scene to the point that it actually takes you out of the picture, at the one point where you should be the most captivated. Tyra Banks is weak throughout, and also overacts her role in the film's climax. Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes turn in the best performances of the picture, believe it or not. However, that's likely due to the fact that their roles weren't much of a stretch from their everyday persona. It is with Michael Rapaport that this film flourishes or falters. He does a surprisingly good job in his role, though he's neither consistent nor up to par with Edward Nortons very similar "American History X" character. The rest of the cast (including roles by Jennifer Connelly, Laurence Fishburne, and Kristy Swanson) is decent, but forgettable.

Higher Learning tries to be a timeless film that makes unforgettable statements on racism, violence, sexism, and social ineptitude. Instead, it comes off as pretentious in nature, and loses all meaning that it hoped to bank on (as an example of this pretentiousness, allow me to point to the word 'Unlearn,' which was emblazoned across the American flag immediately preceding the final credits). The characters are too overblown to be taken seriously. It's as if we're watching caricatures...nothing more than personified racial stereotypes, filtered into a cliched college life.

John Singleton tried his hardest to make a picture that would have a lasting impression on all that watched it. In this respect, he failed. However, he did create a movie that was entertaining to watch, and featured a handful of captivating situational storylines. In the end, this movie is a good popcorn flic...something to watch, be entertained by, and quickly dismiss. In the eyes of John Singleton, I'd assume that alone is the worst possible thing I could ever think to say about his movie.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

8½ (1963):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005QAPH.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Guido is an acclaimed director, fresh off a hit film. Now, everybody is hounding him. Actors and actresses want a role in his next film, while producers, the media, fans, his wife, his friends, and his mistress all want one thing or another out of him. Aside from his inability to get a moment's peace (or, perhaps because of it), Guido is facing a serious case of director's block. He has no ideas for his next movie, and it's far too late to back out of production. As Guido brainstorms, he begins to evaluate his own life. He retreats into dreams, memories, and fantasy...thinking back on the major happenings in his life, and all of the women that he's loved and left. It is there that he finds his motivation, and the subject of his next picture: himself.

Comments: One of the all-time greats, 8½ was groundbreaking in it's premise as one of the first movies about making a movie. Many have come since, in one form or another...from Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation, to Woody Allen's Stardust Memories, to François Truffaut's Day for Night. However, 8½ stands out above the rest, as it is so much more than just a film about film. It's a film about love, lust, motivation, dreams, memories, and most of all...self-evaluation. A dozen people can walk away from this film with two dozen different interpretations and meanings.

The film's high point is it's direction. Federico Fellini was a genius ahead of his time. This picture is as visually stunning as any I've had the pleasure of viewing. The film's opening dream sequence sets the tone for the rest of the movie, and, in less than 5 minutes, sums up perfectly everything Federico Fellini (and, consequently, the film's protagonist) was going through. I think I respect this movie so much because of the nerve is must have taken to produce.

I typically don't appreciate symbolism in cinema as much as other seem to...but there was one scene that really did stand out symbolically. It's a fantasy of the main character, in which he crawls underneath a table to get away from the pressure coming down on him from every angle...gets a revolver, and shoots himself. I imagine that's what it felt like for Fellini to go forward with this film. At the height of his career, with people pressing him from every angle, he decides to make a deeply personal movie, exposing his faults and his fears to everyone around him. In much the same way that a bullet from a gun can't be unfired...Fellini decided to put this film out there for the world to see, an act that could never be reversed. The emotions...the finality of it all, is expressed so beautifully in that one scene. Fortunately for Fellini (and, to a higher extent, the viewers), this film is filled with scenes that are equally impressive. From beginning to end, every nook and cranny of this movie has a meaning to it's creator. 8½ is a deeply personal work, and the willingness to put something to telling out there for the world to see...that alone deserves my utmost respect.

As I've said...Fellini's directorial touch and brilliant writing resulted in a deeply personal, visually stunning film. That, paired with remarkable acting, makes 8½ one of the all-time greats...a classic that every fan of cinema should see at least once in their lifetime. As for me? I anticipate many, many more viewings in the years to come.

Awards & Nominations:
1964 Academy Award - Best Costume Design
1964 Academy Award - Best Foreign Film
1964 Academy Award Nomination - Best Art Design/Set Decoration
1964 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director
1964 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.1/10 (Top 250 - #213)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Storytelling (2001)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JKJG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This film tells two unrelated stories, one titled fiction, one titled non-fiction. Fiction focuses on Vi, a college girl who, in a sense, allows herself to be exploited by anybody who wishes to do so, including her college professor. Non-fiction tells the tale of Scooby, via Toby Oxman, a loser who hopes to become a famous documentarian. In his first piece, Oxman focuses on Scooby, a typically rebellious, hates-the-world teenager who, not unlike Toby, has dreams of being famous.

Comments: I love what Todd Solondz was trying to do in this movie. Unfortunately, I don't think he did that great of a job. Don't get me wrong, he masterfully made his point. However, he layered on so many personal ideals that his main point became muddled...lost in a sea of biases. The point Solondz was trying to make is that storytelling is a very intricate occurrence, in which both the audience and the creator play a substaintial role. A serious piece can be misconstrued as humorous, or even as malicious, when the intent was nothing but sincere.

Both sections of this film do a great job of making this point. The audience is just as responsible for giving meaning to material as the creator is. Fresh idea...something I'd never really considered, and a point that was expressed very well by Solondz. However, aside from that, we have subtext commentary on sexual relations, race, immigration, the death penalty, exploitation, celebrity, and on and on. The stories, rather than being told for their own sake, are told with the sole intent of portraying Solondz's personal, societal complaints. Through this, the stories are weakened, the character depth dissolves, and the film loses itself in it's potential. Simply put, Storytelling doesn't tell a good story in either of it's two attempts. It makes a good point...but that's something altogether different from telling a good story.

It's worth seeing, if only for the unique way that Solondz goes about displaying his thoughts. I'm glad I watched it, and I still intend to purchase Happiness and Welcome to the Dollhouse, two of Solondz's more acclaimed works...because I did see a lot of potential (and a style that I found both intriguing and fresh). However, I won't be forcing Storytelling upon any of my friends, and I doubt I'll watch it again anytime soon.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Forgotten, The (2004)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JN3X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: 14 months ago, Telly lost her 8-year old son in a plane crash. She's plagued by his memory, going through photo albums and watching old home movies on a daily basis. One day, the photos disappear. The videos are erased. Telly's psychiatrist informs her that she never had a son...that he had died during birth, and that to cope with this, she had formed 8 years worth of elaborate memories. Her husband confirms this. Nobody but Telly has any recollection of her son. However, when she goes and talks to the father of another child that died in the plane crash, she realizes that perhaps she's not psychotic. Perhaps there's something larger at work...something which could explain the NSA agents that are now trying to hunt her down.

Comments: Let me start by saying that, despite is standout cast, The Forgotten is nothing more than a popcorn flic. It's entertainment, not art. There's nothing wrong with this...it's just not what you typically expect from a cast featuring Julianne Moore, Gary Sinise, and company. Furthermore, you certainly don't expect it to be a mediocre blockbuster film. Sadly, that's exactly what it is.

The acting is below average for the remarkable cast (which remains above par in respect to everyone else). The direction is about what you'd expect from Joseph Ruben...a guy who's made two other movies in the past ten years, one of which was the 1995 atrocity Money Train. As with all big-budget Hollywood blockbusters, this film lives or dies by it's story. It comes up a bit short in that area, too. An awesome premise is tarnished by a predictable, copout explanation.

To break it down, this film has: Good acting, though not as good as I expected going in. Mediocre direction (though there are some pretty kickass special effects). A strong premise that couldn't live up to it's own innovation. An extremely anticlimactic ending. And...quite a few suspenseful, "jump moments." All in all, it's worth watching if you just don't have anything else to do on a Friday night (and you've already seen the better movies that are playing now, like Garden State and Napoleon Dynamite). Personally...I think you can find a better film than this to pass your time. I won't be buying it, or watching it again anytime soon.

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Lola Rennt (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000021Y77.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Manni does jobs here and there for a ruthless criminal. Given the opportunity to get in the man's good graces, Manni agrees to take on a job that will pay out 100,000 Dutch marks. However, on his way to meet and deliver the money to his boss, he carelessly loses the bag full of cash. So, he phones his girlfriend Lola. Lola takes it upon herself to do whatever she must to come up with the money and save Manni's life. The catch? Manni is supposed to be meeting with his boss in 20 minutes, and Lola's scooter was stolen earlier in the day. 20 minutes, no transportation, 100 grand. How do you do it? Well...there are a few different ways, actually.

Comments: I loved this movie. If I were given one word to describe it, that word would be exhilarating. If I got a follow-up word, I'd definitely use fun. This movie was just plain fun. Think of a techno music track. Up beat, fast paced, not much time to relax. Now, convert that into film, and you've got Run Lola Run. Not surprisingly, the film's musical track is comprised mostly of techno...quite fitting given the movie's fast pace.

The story is original, and extremely captivating. You're always wondering what's going to happen next. The use of time in the film is astounding...as is the editing. You feel like you're actually there with Lola on this adventure of hers. You never really notice the cutting from scene to scene, so, consequently, you're never taken out of the action. This produces not only a fast paced movie, but a much more enjoyable and realistic environment. Director Tom Tykwer did a wonderful job with this film and it's concept.

The acting is great. Don't expect any uber-emotional, Sean Penn performances. Don't expect any atypical-character, Edward Norton performances. This just isn't that type of film. I'd compare the acting most to that of Robert DeNiro (though, of course, not on his level). It's just believable. There are no difficult character portrayals or emotional sequences that make you take note of the level of acting. There's just true-to-life characters doing true-to-life, albeit desperate, things...and they're all completely believable.

All in all, it's a solid film...fun, entertaining, and packed to the brim with content. As usual, I'll inform the more mainstream movie-goers that this film is in German with subtitles, and I'll also go on to inform them that the film is just as enjoyable (if not more-so) than most domestic films.

Awards & Nominations:
1999 Sundance Film Festival - Audience Award

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.2/10 (Top 250 - #109)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Primer (2004):

http://www.empiremovies.com/images/posters/primer.jpg

Plot: Four friends, rich in scientific knowledge, are attempting to come up with an invention that will catch the world's attention and, consequently, build the four of them a pretty substantial nest egg. However, when two of the four discover that they've accidentally produced a makeshift time machine, they shut the other two out of the group and decide to use the machine to their advantage. Every minute spent in the machine is a minute gone back in time. So, they start the machine in the morning, cocoon in a motel room for the day (checking sports scores and stock movement), then spend the entire evening in the machine. They leave the machine in the morning, and bet on games which they already know the outcome to (or purchase stocks with the most substantial increases for the day). For kicks...in the evening, they return to the machine only to see doubles of themselves (doubles that have spent the entire day in a hotel room studying sports scores and stocks) entering the machine, in the exact same manner as they had earlier, er, later..or um, earlier in the day. Got that?

Comments: Thus far, Primer is one of the five best films of 2004...and I have no doubt that it will remain on that list for the remainder of the year. The film was made on a $7,000 budget by a first-time writer and director named Shane Carruth. Carruth also stars in the film, along with a cast of actors with zero experience. So, the film must really suck, huh? Apparently not. It was the hit film of this year's Sundance film festival, and looks about as professionally done as any independent film I've ever seen.

The plot, which deals with time travel, isn't anything new...but the film still manages to remain fresh. It creates an identity for itself separate from the Back to the Futures of the cinematic world. This alone is quite an accomplishment. Primer is definitely a thinking-man's movie, filled with paradoxes that my mind had a hell of a time wrapping itself around. Don't expect any favors from Carruth, though. He certainly doesn't slow things down for you to catch up. Not to mention...the heady, mindfuck of a story is only magnified by the constant use of scientific terminology that only an engineer could ever hope to keep up with. The best part of this is that all of the terminology (leading up to the time travel) is accurate, as Carruth went out of his way to study the science he intended to use for this picture.

The acting isn't anything remarkable, but it's certainly more than I'd expect from a group of guys with no experience, who simply wanted to take part in making a film (without pay, might I add). They don't come off as amateurish all that often...surprising given their ridiculously complex dialogue, and (due to the film's budget) minimal number of takes per scene. The key to this film...the one thing it lives or dies by (and that carries it to a moderate level of greatness) is it's story. For the story alone (probably the most convincing time-travel tale ever brought to the screen), Primer is worth watching at least once...though, trust me when I say that one viewing won't suffice. You'll definitely be in for two or three viewings, just to make sure you've kept up with everything in the picture. Then you'll want to watch it once more, for enjoyment's sake. After all, you will have earned it.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Sundance Film Festival - Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize
2004 Sundance Film Festival - Grand Jury Prize (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: N/A (Pre-Release)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMJG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When Joel and Clementine's relationship goes sour, they part ways. One day, not too long after the split, Joel is shocked to discover that Clementine has had him erased from her memory. In an attempt to ease the pain, Joel decides to undergo the same procedure. However, in the midst of the procedure...he realizes through his loss what he actually had in the first place, and fights as hard as he can to cling to what memories he has left. As the doctor and his crew chase Joel through the depths of his memory, it's clear that he's not giving her up without a fight.

Comments: I love Charlie Kaufman. Seriously...I think it's unhealthy, how enamored I am with his work. Adaptation is one of my all-time favorites. Being John Malkovich was very, very good. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Human Nature were both respectable. Now, I've been graced by Eternal Sunshine, a film that will compete with Adaptation as my favorite Kaufman work, and forever take it's spot among my 100 or so favorite films.

The film has a great, fresh story that is magnified exponentially by the superb directorial job that Michael Gondry turned in. Seriously, based on this film alone, I'm anxiously awaiting Gondry's next two or three films. He did that good of a job. As far as the acting goes, it's most definitely above average. Kate Winslet does well, and though she's never done much for me, I actually grew rather attached to her character. Jim Carrey is even more impressive in what I would say is his best work to date. He conveys the emotions of his character in a way that totally removes any doubt that he's nothing more than a comedic actor.

This, so far, tops my list of films for 2004. If it doesn't get a slew of Oscar nominations and a trophy or two, I'll lose any and all respect I have left for the Academy. Same goes for the folks at the Golden Globes, and any other American awards ceremonies. Eternal Sunshine is a beautiful film that I intend to watch many, many times. It's going to take the place of Big Fish as the new movie I force everybody I know to watch at least once. If you're reading this, that includes you. If you don't go watch this movie now...I'll kill your pet.

Awards & Nominations:
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Comedy
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actress, Comedy (Kate Winslet)
2005 Gloden Globe Nomination - Best Actor, Comedy (Jim Carrey)
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.6/10 (Top 250 - #37)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

C'est arrivé près de chez vous (1992):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006FMCS.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A camera crew follows around a serial killer as he does what he does best. He rants on art, society, nature, and life...all while he kills people at random. Slowly, the camera crew (funded by the very man they're following) becomes more and more involved in the actions of their subject...to such a point that the line between chronicling and participating is blurred into virtual nonexistence.

Comments: I really, really enjoyed this movie. Sure, it's rather twisted. Extremely twisted, now that I think of it. This movie is filmed as a mockumentary...so it's got a sense of realism that's actually somewhat chilling. The lead actor goes by his actual, true-life name. So do the filmmakers. The lead subject's parents and grandparents in the film are his parents and grandparents in real life. For about half of the film, they honestly believe they're taking part in a non-fictional documentary about their son/grandson...and know nothing of the film's true plot, or that it's even a film. Therefore, their actions and reactions are all genuine. These things, combined with an unwavering assault of violence and immorality, give the film a chillingly realistic feel.

This film has a spectacular blend of everything from dark humor, to intelligent dialogue, to shocking violence (such as multiple men raping a woman as her husband watches, the murder of a child, and numerous varied killings). The ability of this film to switch from the humorous to the appalling in the blink of an eye is it's greatest strength. The acting is extremely realistic, to the point that an onlooker who didn't know anything about the film might actually believe that what they're watching is true (based on the action alone, and not taking into account the humorously overblown scenes, etc).

Man Bites Dog is some very fresh filmmaking from a young crew of guys out of France. The story, the approach, the inability (or unwillingness, perhaps) to hold back on the portrayal of traumatic and violent scenes, all of these things combine to make this a great, unforgettable film. I recommend Man Bites Dog to everyone who enjoys foreign films...and even to those that don't.

Awards & Nominations:
1992 Cannes Film Festival - SACD Award
1992 Cannes Film Festival - Special Award of the Youth

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.5/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Walking Tall (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000274T94.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When Chris Vaughn, a member of the Special Forces in the United States Army, returns home from active duty, he finds his town overrun by a corrupt Sheriff's department and a crooked casino owner that moonlights as a drug dealer. Vaughn decides it's now his job to see to it that the town he grew up in doesn't fall prey to the woes of society. He runs for Sheriff, and wins. With the help of his deputy/best friend, and a very large piece of lumber, he sets out to make things right.

Comments: Honestly, this film (which is based on a true story) gave me a bit more than I expected when I sat down to watch it. Now, that's not to say that it's a great film by any means...but it certainly was better than I had expected. This is the type of film that you watch when you want to see some mindless ass-kicking. If you go in expecting anything more, you'll be disappointed.

Fortunately for me, "The Rock" had the lead role, so I went in expecting the film to be complete shit. He did a surprisingly good job in his role (not at all award worthy, but not horrible, either). Let's put it like this; he wasn't so bad that it took the viewer out of the film. Johnny Knoxville was equally decent in his role, and made me chuckle on more than one occasion. Other aspects of the film are typically Hollywood, and don't warrant further comment. One thing that caught me off guard was the film's extremely short runtime (less than an hour and a half). It just ended really, really abruptly. I suppose everything was wrapped up by the time the credits rolled, and I really wasn't left wanting more, but it was still like, "oh, wow...so it's over?"

Anyway...this isn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it'd be a stretch to call it a good film. However, as a popcorn-flic, it exceeds expectations. See it when you're in the mood to watch some ass-kicking, don't expect too much, and you should walk away with a good impression.

JP's Rating: 5.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Finding Nemo (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JM02.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When an underwater predator attacks Marlin's family...he and the unborn Nemo are the only two left. Marlin vows then that he'll never let anything happen to his son. Years later, Nemo is captured by a diver and taken to a fish tank in a dentist's office. A distraught Marlin and his new, absent-minded friend Dory set off with one goal: Finding Nemo.

Comments: Finding Nemo is a very, very good movie, animated or otherwise. It's one of the best Disney feature films (especially in the past decade or so, up there with The Lion King and Aladdin), which is saying a lot. I think it's the best Pixar film to date (above the likes of Toy Story and A Bug's Life). I'd probably go as far as to say it's the best animated feature film that I've ever seen...though Shrek gives it some competition.

The story is the heart of this film, of course. Direction, acting, cinematography, all of those things go out the window when commenting on animated films. The only things to comment on are the animation, and the story. This film shines in both. The animation is astounding. I am blown away at the alternate worlds that are capable of being created with computer animation. As you watch Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, or any other digitally-animated film, it's easy to forget that you're not actually watching real, talking fish and ants. The story is a great one...up's and down's, great characters, great relationships, humor, sadness, joy, the works.

Assuming you're not among those who are too cool or "grown-up" to enjoy a light-hearted animated film...I guarantee you that you'll enjoy Finding Nemo. If you haven't seen it, do so immediately.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award - Best Animated Feature
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Musical Score
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound Editing
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2004 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy
2004 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Comedic Performance (DeGeneres)
2004 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Movie

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.3/10 (Top 250 - #79)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Matchstick Men (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00012QLB4.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Roy, an obsessive compulsive con-artist, and his young partner are on the verge of pulling off a very lucrative job when, out of nowhere, Roy's teenage daughter shows up. As the two form a bond that's years overdue, Roy has a hard time juggling his work, and his new relationship with his young daughter.

Comments: Matchstick Men is a very strong film. It's got a good story (though, I'll admit, I'm a sucker for con movies. Con-artists are just plain interesting, and open the door to so many fun cinematic adventures). The acting in this film is far above average. Nicholas Cage is brilliant in his portrayal of an obsessive compulsive con-artist with numerous "ticks." Alison Lohman is great as Cage's daughter. Sam Rockwell is believable in his role. The acting is just wonderful...and the casting, I couldn't have done it better, myself.

The direction is spectacular, as is the cinematography. I was actually able to, for lack of a better term, "relate to" what the obsessive compulsive protagonist was going through. This was due in part to Cage's acting, and in part to Ridley Scott's direction. Scott just had a way of focusing on actions and objects for the right amount of time, and in the right way. It totally drew me into Cage's character. Wonderfully directed.

Honestly, I'm not sure what more to say about the film. The acting is great, the story is awesome, the direction accomplishes what it sets out to do. My only complaints are about the film's ending (the last scene or two) and a plot hole or two. All in all, though, Matchstick Men is just an enjoyable film that, for me at least, stands up to repeated viewings. It's not a smart, intricate film. However, it is one that I most certainly recommend to anybody who wants a fun story with good characters...and who doesn't want that in a film-going experience?

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Bad Boys (1983):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305261067.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: Mick O'Brian, a teenager with no regard for the law, is sent to a juvenile hall for vehicular manslaughter after accidentally running over the little brother of his nemesis, Paco Moreno, during a police chase. While incarcerated, O'Brian quickly learns the ropes and earns the respect of the other inmates. However, when Moreno is arrested and sent to the same facility, Mick is left to fend for himself against an enemy that wants nothing more than to avenge his little brother's death by taking Mick's life.

Comments: I found this movie, used, only days after my roommate brought it up in conversation. It was six dollars, so I picked it up. I watched it, and truly did enjoy it. However, I felt that it was a bit too choppy at times. The editing seemed off, because the film would cut away in what seemed to be the middle of a scene. Aside from that, I found the movie to be enjoyable. I'm halfway through a Penology class, and from what I've learned thus far, this film conveyed quite accurately what life is like inside prison walls.

Even without it's accuracy, the story would remain strong. It's touches on youth, rebellion, love, hatred, vengeance, fate, consequences, and the value of freedom. It's got clearly defined protagonists and antagonists, love interests and close friends. Very well rounded story...which is made that much better by the good acting. Sean Penn is strong in only his third feature length film (quite a role for him to play, considering this film was released just a year after the successful "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"). He's not as powerful an actor as he is today, but the potential was obvious, and even at that young age he shined above his cast-mates. That's not to say that the supporting cast didn't carry their weight, though. Esai Morales does a good job as Moreno, and Ally Sheedy (of "Breakfast Club" fame) is good in her first feature length role.

Tonight, when I went to the IMDB board for this film to find it's ranking, I noticed that there is an explanation for what I assumed to be poor editing. There are two versions of the film, one 123 minute version, and one edited 104 minute version. I saw the latter...which explains why the film seemed rather choppy. So, this one's getting a relatively low score (lower than the sum of it's parts, since it has a strong in story and good acting), simply because I hate the feeling that I've missed out on 20 minutes of the movie. Anyway, from what I saw out of the short version, it's a good, true-to-prison-life story with strong acting. If that sounds like your kind of movie, check it out. It's up to you whether or not you want the tame version, or the film in it's entirety. I'll take the latter any day, since that's the way the movie was intended to be shown. Stupid fucking censorship. Ugh.

JP's Rating 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Nuit et brouillard (1955):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000093NQZ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Combining black and white archive footage with modern color footage, Alain Resnais (through a voiceover by Michael Bouquet) uses Night and Fog to recount the horrors of the concentration camps that were used by Nazi Germany during the WWII era.

Comments: Night and Fog is the single most moving piece of cinema I've ever laid eyes upon. After it was over, I sat alone in my living room, staring at the TV screen for what seemed like a half an hour, but was more likely in the neighborhood of 5 minutes. Thoughts kept racing to the forefront of my mind...questions and ideas about life, afterlife, and most of all, the nature of man, and the horridly evil things man is capable of.

Night and Fog is not a traditional movie in any sense. It's a short film slash documentary, with a runtime of about 33 minutes. There are no actors, only a voiceover that narrates the seemingly endless stream of color photography (modern shots of now abandoned concentration camps) and black and white, archive footage of the horrors that had occurred there just a decade prior.

The dialogue in Night and Fog is certain to leave me with a lasting impression that no other film could ever hope to match. Likewise, the images are forever burned into my memory. Long after I've forgotten the most important of scenes in all of my favorite films, I'll be left with a recollection of every single image, every word of dialogue, that make up Resnais' timeless documentary.

I've spent nearly 15 minutes writing the last three paragraphs. Typically, I have no difficulty vocalizing my thoughts. This film, though, truly does leave me speechless. No string of words, no amount of adjectives, could ever hope to convey to you the importance of this film. I don't care if you hate foreign-language films. I don't care if you have a stomach too weak to handle images of charred corpses, mass graves, and mountains of human hair. I don't care if you're too busy, or too lazy, or too apathetic. Everyone, and I mean everyone, should be forced to view this film at least once in their lifetime...for those who don't view this documentary have done themselves a great disservice.

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Jersey Girl (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00029LO5E.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Ollie is a respected and established publicist who has it all. He's married to a beautiful wife, he has a well-paying job that he loves doing, and he has a daughter on the way. However, when his wife dies unexpectedly, things begin to fall apart. Before he knows it, Ollie is living at his father's house in New Jersey, struggling to raise his daughter, and dreaming of the life he once knew. Seven years later, the opportunity arises for Ollie to again get his foot in the door of the industry he so loved. The thing is, this will mean leaving behind his father, taking his daughter out of the school she's grown accustomed to, and moving away from the video-store clerk that he's developed a bit of a crush for.

Comments: This movie is a typical romantic comedy. The usual plot vices are there...happiness, tragedy, conflict, and, at last, resolution. This is the blueprint for all romantic comedies, and, although it's a Kevin Smith film, Jersey Girl is no different. Fortunately for Smith, as well as the viewer, this film just works.

Now, naturally, as a Kevin Smith fan, I'm inclined to appreciate this film more than the average romantic comedy simply because his name is attached to it. On the other hand, that seems to be the reason most people hate it; because Kevin's name is attached to it...and it's far from anything he's ever done before. I don't fall into either of the two categories: fan-boy who loves everything Smith does, or fan-boy who hates everything Smith does that doesn't involve Jay and Bob. This review is as unbiased as is possible.

I usually don't enjoy romantic comedies. The reason? Romantic comedies are usually heavy on the romance, and ridiculously light on the comedy. This film, while still overflowing with sentimentality, manages to include a handful of those comedic moments and bits of dialogue that made Kevin Smith famous. This is not to say that this film is anywhere near as funny as his previous work. It does lack the one thing that makes Smith's humor so biting: the minute-long dialogues, sharp social commentary, biting cinematic wit, and unparalleled situational humor.

This film tones down the typically over-the-top humor. The characters aren't as eccentric as in Smith's other films. However, the toned-down humor and low-key characters are what makes this movie work so well. Smith still managed to include some of his trademark humor, while keeping true to the genre and presenting a strong story with heartfelt characters. On top of this, the acting is good. Outside of Good Will Hunting, Ben Affleck seems to be at his best when he's working with Smith. Liv Tyler is strong, and the chemistry between her and Affleck is wonderful. George Carlin is surprisingly believable in his role, given the history of comedians-turned-actors. The biggest surprise, and the definite show-stealer, was little Raquel Castro as Gertie.

This movie isn't a classic. It's not going to stick with you for more than a day or so. It's not Kevin Smith's best work. However, it's not his worst, either. In a genre overwhelmed by cliches, Smith managed to produce a breath of fresh air. He claims it's the one work that he's most proud of. Rightfully so. If you're ever in the mood for a light-hearted, romantic comedy...you might want to check out Jersey Girl.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

On the Waterfront (1954):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CXBU.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Terry Malloy used to be a headline boxer, but now he's running errands as a sidekick to Johnny Friendly, a local thug and the corrupt head of the dock-workers union. Terry witnesses the murder of a man he knew who was set to testify against Johnny Friendly. Soon thereafter, a guilt-stricken Terry meets the sister of the murdered man. As the two grow attached, Terry begins to consider the pleas of a local minister named Father Berry. The minister's proposal is quite risky, however: he's asking that Terry testify against his no-nonsense boss.

Comments: Widely considered as one of the greatest films of all time (#8 on AFI's 100 years, 100 films list), On the Waterfront has been near the top of my to-see list for quite some time. After watching it, I wasn't at all let down. Let me start by saying that it wasn't exactly what I expected. With so much focus being placed on the fact that Terry Malloy was a fighter, I expected the film to focus a bit more on boxing than it did. This wasn't the case, and I think that's a good thing, because the film is perfect as is.

I'll start by commenting on the story...which happens to be simple in it's brilliance. It puts a twist on the typical mobster film setting, and tells a somewhat true story of what was happening day in and day out at the ports in New England in the 1940's and 50's. Next; the direction. Elia Kazan (Streetcar Named Desire, East of Eden, and Waterfront are among his more renowned titles) is at the top of his game here. The lighting, the camera angles, the performances he demands out of the actors...all help form this into a great, great film.

I guess I'll use that to segue into the next subject that I wish to comment on: the acting. The acting in this film is, hands down, the greatest I've ever seen. The cast of The Godfather was brilliant throughout. Robert DeNiro was stellar in nearly every one of his early films. Charlize Theron was amazing in Monster. However, the job done by the cast in On the Waterfront is simply breathtaking to watch. The chemistry, the physical actions that accompany the perfectly delivered dialogue...it's almost as if the actors are dancing with one another, playing off their counter's lead. It's remarkable.

One scene in particular stands out above the rest as one of, if not the greatest scene in the history of cinema. In this particular scene, Marlon Brando and Rod Steiger (brothers in the film) are riding in a cab together. The acting in this scene...I really don't know what to say. The sincerity of the acting in that scene, the emotions, the physical movements, the interaction...it's truly a thing to behold, and it's the single greatest scene (paired with the greatest line of dialogue) from and film I've ever watched.

If a movie can never achieve perfection, I'm comfortable in saying that On the Waterfront came as close as possible. This film makes me regret the scores I've given to other films, because a 10/10 just seems too low. I've only viewed it once, and it's already taken a spot near the top of my favorites list. If you've never seen this film, you're missing out. Drop what you're doing and go see it. Get Night and Fog while you're at it. You can thank me later.

Awards & Nominations:
1955 Academy Award - Best Picture
1955 Academy Award - Best Actor (Brando)
1955 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actress (Marie-Saint)
1955 Academy Award - Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, B&W
1955 Academy Award - Best Cinematograpgy, B&W
1955 Academy Award - Best Director (Kazan)
1955 Academy Award - Best Editing
1955 Academy Award - Best Writing, Story and Screenplay
1955 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Cobb)
1955 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Malden)
1955 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Steiger)
1955 Academy Award Nomination - Best Musical Score, Drama/Comedy
1955 Golden Globe - Best Cinematography, B&W
1955 Golden Globe - Best Director (Kazan)
1955 Golden Globe - Best Picture, Drama
1955 Golden Globe - Best Actor, Drama (Brando)

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.4/10 (Top 250 - #76)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

A Cinderella Story (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JN2C.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When her father passes away, a young Sam is forced to live with her stepmother and two stepsisters. Between her schoolwork, worrying over being accepted to college, and working ungodly hours for her stepmother, Sam finds time to carry on an electronic relationship via emails and text messages with a boy who, though he goes to her school, she's never met. With the Halloween dance coming up, the only question is will she be able to get out from under her slave-driving stepmother long enough to meet her prince?

Comments: I'm not quite sure what to say about this film. It is what it is, a film for preteens to adore, then, only a few short years later, wonder why they were ever so enamored with it. I'll say this upfront...going into this viewing, I would have never in a million years gone out of my way to see a teen queen film. After watching this, I feel that stance is justified, and I will still never in a million years go out of my way to see a teen queen film. This is just the type of film you watch when there's nothing to do, and your roommate's girlfriend picks a cutesy flic with which to kill an hour and a half.

After watching this film, a few questions popped into my mind. First and foremost; why? Why was this film made? It did nothing to justify a modernization of a story we've all heard a thousand times. Simply put, it was nothing fresh. It had nothing new to say, nothing to add to the old, played fairytale...so I don't see any justification for it's existence. The other question that I was asking myself is...why in the hell did I enjoy this movie?

The answer to that last question is quite simple. The story had heart. It wasn't groundbreaking. In fact, it wasn't even the freshest premise in the recent onslaught of films targeted toward preteens. However, it drew characters that I actually wanted to see succeed (you can thank Walter Disney for that, and not anybody who had anything to do with the production of this film). There were plot holes. Lots, and lots of plot holes. There were improbabilities, and events left unexplained. There was corny dialogue. There was mediocre acting. There were overblown characters that were more "silly" than they were "fairytale." However, through all of this, Walt Disney's storytelling ability still managed to shine through.

In the end, I was able to ignore the film's numerous fundamental fallacies, and enjoy a very basic story that's been told for decades. Unfortunately for "A Cinderella Story," there simply was no justification for retelling this age-old tale. When it's all said and done, this is a mundane film that justifies my indifference to it's genre. See it if there's nothing else to do, or if you're in the mood for a light-hearted teen romance. Personally, though, I'm sure you can find something better with which to pass your time.

JP's Rating: 4.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 4.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Rashômon (1950):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CXC6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: In ancient Japan, a woman is raped and her husband is murdered. The story is recounted by four separate witnesses, each of which have their own individual and extremely contrasting explanation of what occurred that day in the forest. Which of the four, if any, is telling the truth?

Comments: This film was my introduction to one of the most renowned filmmakers of all time, Akira Kurosawa...and I was completely and utterly blown away. I am thankful that I have four more Kurosawa films waiting to be watched, for if they live up to Rashomon, I'm in for quite a treat. This is the film that introduced Akira Kurosawa, and consequently, Japanese cinema, to the world. Before the production of Rashomon, the western world had not been exposed to Japanese cinema. This film single-handedly changed that...and yes, it's that good.

Akira Kurosawa can't garner all of the credit, though. Some praise must be reserved for the cinematographer that he teamed up with, a man by the name of Kazuo Miyagawa. Miyagawa, working with a good bit of creative control thanks to a trusting Kurosawa (as well as a few groundbreaking ideas given to him by Kurosawa) filmed a breathtakingly beautiful piece of work. Rashomon marks the first time in the history of cinema that the sun was caught, directly, on film. Seeing as this film was made in 1950, the very modern camerawork is made that much more astonishing. When you consider that this film paved the path by doing numerous things never before done in cinema, you gain an even deeper appreciation.

The acting is typical for Japanese cinema, and anything but typical in the eyes of the average American moviegoer. Japanese actors are much more superfluous in their delivery than American actors. They tend to overact their roles. In a film with as much emotion as Rashomon, I think this is perfectly fitting. Honestly, I wouldn't have it any other way.

I can't say enough about the direction and cinematography. There are numerous amazingly beautiful scenes...and the whole, for once, equals, if not surpasses, the sum of it's parts. The acting isn't typical, but it fits. The story is as fresh today as it was a half a century ago. In fact, Rashomon's story has actually inspired modern classics, such as Run Lola Run. This film introduced Japanese cinema to the world. It introduced me to Akira Kurosawa. For that alone, it will forever remain among my favorites. A beautiful piece of work that any filmgoer would be lucky to view.

Awards & Nominations:
1953 Academy Award Nomination - Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, B&W
1952 Honorary Academy Award - Most Outstanding Foreign Language Film
1951 Venice Film Festival - Golden Lion (Best Picture)
1951 Venice Film Festival - Italian Film Critics Award

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.5/10 (Top 250 - #57)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Little Shop of Horrors (1960):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005B1YM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Seymour is an accident-prone young man who works under a demanding boss at a flower shop on Skid Row. Facing termination for one of his numerous slip-ups, he informs his boss that he's developed a new species of plant. A customer informs his boss that this could be a big draw, so Seymour is ordered to bring in the plant if he wants to keep his job. Having fed his little plant, which he has named Audrey Jr., everything from high-dollar fertilizer to lavish mineral water, Seymour is perplexed as to why the little plant is unhealthy. Then, one night, he pricks his finger and accidentally feeds the plant what it's been needing all along: human blood. In order to keep his plant healthy, and avoid getting fired, Seymour has to find a way to get more, erm...food, for Audrey Jr., who grows substantially with each meal.

Comments: A cult classic, Little Shop of Horrors tells a tale like no other. A demanding boss, a gorgeous love interest, a Munchausen-stricken mother, a demented dentist, a pain-seeking patient, a timid protagonist, a couple of film-noir investigators, and, most importantly, a talking, man-eating plant make up the quirky cast of characters that drive this wholly original film.

There's one nagging problem, though. Little Shop simply hasn't stood the test of time. If any film has ever warranted a remake, it's this one. There was a decent little remake in the mid-80's, but it was a musical and simply didn't manage to do with this subject matter what it could have. In a perfect world, Tim Burton would take on the task of nursing out of this film it's true, unfulfilled potential. Another thing stacked against this film is the DVD treatment it's gotten to date: I'm not exaggerating when I say that the best transfer of this film is still of mediocre VHS quality. That, paired with the fact that it was made in 1960 on a shoestring budget, leaves the viewer with a film that, given the level of quality we're used to, is just plain hard to watch.

However, for what it is; a low-budget cult classic...Little Shop is amazing, and stands a head above it's peers. In the end, I just can't justify holding it's age or stingy distributors against it. It's a creative, fun movie that, despite a less-than-stellar final climax, is likely just as entertaining today as the day it was produced. If you're in the mood for a dark comedy that's most certainly outside the norm, this is definitely the film for you. Despite it's billing, don't go in expecting this to be a Jack Nicholson film. Though he has a small (and great) role, Little Shop is so much more than that.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Sleepaway Camp (1983):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305841985.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Martha and her protective cousin Ricky, who live with Martha's eccentric aunt (Ricky's mother), are sent off to Camp Arawak for the summer. Soon after they arrived, a number of people, from camp staff to fellow campers, begin to drop dead. Two questions arise: who's the killer, and will Martha and Ricky be able to get out alive?

Comments: Let's set one thing straight from the start...the highest possible ranking I'll give a cheesy horror film is a 7.0/10. Simple as that. With that said, this film receives the highest possible ranking, making it one of the tops in it's genre. Don't get me wrong, this is nowhere near as good as some of the other films I've given a 7/10 to (ditto for the last film I reviewed. Little Shop isn't as good of a film as some of the other 7's that I've reviewed, but in it's genre, it's among the best. Hence the inflated score). If you see this film, don't go in expecting a Halloween or a Friday the 13th. This movie is as much dark comedy as it is horror. There isn't much suspense. There really isn't even all that much gore.

The acting here is atrocious, which is a plus in a cheesy 1980's horror film. The actors would have a hard time finding work on a high school drama squad...and I wouldn't have it any other way. The direction is equally horrid, with camera angles that simply scream "we didn't have enough money to actually show you this killing, but you still get the idea of what's happening, don'tcha?"

There is one thing that sets this film above the "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Night of the Zombies" type films...and that's the ending. This film has the single most shocking conclusion of any film I've ever watched. Forget about The Usual Suspects, nevermind Fight Club, and don't mention The Sixth Sense. This film has all of them topped. Go ahead. Try to guess. I dare you to try to predict the film's final twist.

See this film, if not for the numerous laugh-out-loud scenes and bits of humorous dialogue, then for the ending alone. Just don't go in expecting too much out of it, and definitely don't take it too seriously. If it's your cup of tea, play a few drinking games before hand and share this film, and some drunken laughs, with a group of friends.

JP's Rating: 7.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.1/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Slacker (1991):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002DB4ZK.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This is a film that truly defies any attempts at a plot summary, but I'll try as best I can. This film follows a day in Austin, Texas. Every character has his/her 5 minutes in the spotlight, and no sooner than they've entered the film, they're gone, never to return. In total, approximately 110 characters are featured, each as much of an oddball "slacker" as the last.

Comments: What a great idea for a film. I've always said that if I were to make a film, it would be one in which not too much happens. Not a boring film, really, but a true film...a film that featured a protagonist that everyone could relate to. Not a wild criminal, not a brilliant scientist, just a regular guy doing regular things, to whom, about 3/4 of the way through, something out of the ordinary happens. I figured there had to be something out of the ordinary, because otherwise the film would be no different than going out and living through an average day...and that's just not as entertaining as a film should be.

Well, I was wrong. Nothing extraordinary has to happen for a film to be intriguing and captivating. Richard Linklater took not only one average person, but about a hundred average people, and had them do average things: walk around town, have a conversation, buy a cup of coffee, browse around in a bookstore, and so on. The characters are based on the "actors" that play them...actors picked off the streets of Austin (some at random, some because they fit the part Linklater had in mind) to come in for auditions.

The key to keeping this movie entertaining is the the large number of characters that it features. You're constantly on the edge of your seat, wondering what kind of quirky character you'll be introduced to next. Also, there's the fact that, just as you get involved in the life of a particular character, you're thrown into the life of another, left to wonder whatever happened to the first. This cycle repeats itself until the end of the film. That is also a segue into my biggest complaint about the film; it's ending. I loved the ride, but unfortunately, it didn't lead anywhere. I was left wanting a point to everything I had watched. It was almost as if Linklater came up with a unique idea (a film with no real lead characters), but didn't know how to adapt it into a story that led anywhere.

The acting is great at times, and poor at times, but that's expected with so many actors and actresses crammed into one picture. The direction was great, with fluid transitions and unique camerawork. The story was original. All in all, it was just a really entertaining film. However, don't watch it wondering where it's taking you, because there is no final destination. It doesn't loop back around on any one character. It doesn't end in a traumatic or heartwarming climax. It does have a nice little ending, but it's just not what I expected or hoped for. Final word: it's a solid film that's well worth your time. Richard Linklater's best work to date.

Awards & Nominations:
1991 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize
1992 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best First Feature (Linklater)
1992 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Director (Linklater)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

3 Women (1977):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001GH5TW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A shy, impressionable girl named Pinky starts work at a nursing home after moving to a new city. It is here that she finds a role model of sorts in a co-worker named Millie. Millie, a would-be sophisticate who needs to fill a recently vacated room in her apartment, takes in Pinky as a roommate. It is at this point that Pinky's worship turns into something far stranger and more sinister than either could have anticipated.

Comments: This film is definitely a mixed bag. The first two thirds or so are very much a character study, focusing on the atmosphere and the evolution of the girls and their relationship. For the final 1/3 of the runtime, things take a twist, and the plot becomes the focal point of the film. This, I assume, insures that everybody will walk away from this film with something they liked. If you're a fan of character depth, there's a section of the film for you. If you're a fan of plot, there's a section of the film for you. If you're a fan of great acting and direction...the entire film is for you.

The dialogue in this film is so unique, that I'm willing go out on a limb and guarantee you that it's like nothing you've ever seen. The characters are at times sympathetic, and at times sinister. I've filled you in on the premise featuring Millie and Pinky...but what of the title's third woman? Well, Robert Altman included a third woman who sparingly interacts with the others, and is virtually unreadable. This mystique is part of what makes her character so intriguing.

Sissy Spacek and Shelly Duval are both nothing short of brilliant in their roles. Their performances, paired with the film's off-beat, and ultimately honest feel, results in a standout picture amongst a career of brilliant works by Robert Altman. The camerawork, and the under-populated, dusty California town in which the film is set, gives the viewer an almost surreal experience. This film moves slowly at first, and even at it's climax isn't exactly a roller coaster ride. As such, it's certainly not for everyone. However, those that decide to take a chance on it may very well walk away with a new personal favorite. If not, you will, at the very least, have the pleasure of knowing that you've witnessed the work of a great American director in his prime.

Awards & Nominations:
1977 Cannes Film Festival - Best Actress (Duvall)
1977 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.6/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Ed Wood (1994):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000VD04M.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: This is a biopic of the life and work of the man named the worst director of all time: Edward D. Wood Jr. The film is set mostly in the 1950's, the time when Wood got his start in filmmaking, developed a friendship with the great Bela Lugosi, and tortured moviegoers around the nation with such films as "Glen or Glenda" and "Bride of the Monster."

Comments: This film is widely regarded as Tim Burton's best. I have to disagree with that, because in my eyes, Big Fish is his masterpiece. This film is definitely a close second, with Edward Scissorhands rounding out the top 3. This film lives or dies by two factors, the acting, and the story. There's no action to carry it. There's no fancy camerawork, no gratuitous nudity. There are simply actors, the characters they portray, and the story they tell.

Given that, I can safely say this is one of the greatest comedic biopics of all time. The story is mostly grounded in reality, with a few cinematic exaggerations tossed in throughout. Simply put, this story has to be true, because there is no way a writer could possibly come up with it. A first time filmmaker, his starlet girlfriend, his friend (a washed up Bela "Dracula" Lugosi), and his legacy: some of the worst films of all time. Yes, fact is sometimes quirkier than fiction.

The acting in this film is virtually unparalleled. Martin Landau is nothing short of brilliant as the aged Lugosi. Johnny Depp turns in, per his usual, a spectacularly honest performance. Sarah Jessica Parker shows that she's more than just a TV queen, and Bill Murray is the perfect choice to bring them all together. Director Tim Burton is in his usual form; artistic, visionary, and wholly unordinary. What it all boils down to: Ed Wood is a great film about a horrible filmmaker. Who'd have thunk it? If you've never seen it, you're truly missing out on a wonderful time.

Awards & Nominations:
1995 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actor (Martin Landau)
1995 Academy Award - Best Makeup
1995 Cannes Film Festival Nomination - Palm d'Or (Best Picture)
1995 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Landau)
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Comedy/Musical
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (Johnny Depp)
1996 Grammy Nomination - Best Instrumental Composition

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #178)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Harrison Bergeron (1995):

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/30/130630.jpg

Plot: Set in a familiar, yet futuristic America, Harrison stands a head above his peers. He's smarter, stronger, and better looking...and the government simply can't stand for that. You see, after years of war, the government decided that the only way to ever create true peace is by doing away with envy. If all men are equal, there is no envy. So, the government takes it upon itself to used headbands to "handicap" those who are at all advanced.

Comments: I am comfortable saying that you've never seen this film. I'm also comfortable in saying that's a crying shame. The story is a great one, very Orwellian in nature. It deals with a futuristic, totalitarian American government that forces every citizen to wear a "band." This band handicaps those that are in any way better than the societal average...the idea being that if everybody is equal, there will be no envy, and if there is no envy, there will be no violence.

Harrison Bergeron is a teenager living in this society. Even with his band on, he's always been smarter than his classmates. When a wedding is planned for him, he begins to wonder if maybe there's more out there for him than a life of mediocrity. The tale is based on the short story of the same title by the great Kurt Vonnegut Jr. The adaptation stars a very convincing Sean Astin, and features supporting performances by the likes of Christopher Plummer and Eugene Levy.

I'm not going to much trouble with this review because, simply put, you'll never see this film. It's not available on DVD. VHS copies regularly go for upwards of $40. It's so obscure that the best photo I could find was the small picture you see above. Luckily, I was fortunate enough to catch it on cable at 3:00 or 4:00am...otherwise, I'd never have known it was out there. Anyway, it's a great story (very much like Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," but not as out there in it's set design). It's got a few plot holes, and a bit of rough-around-the-edges acting...but as far as made-for-TV films go, it's certainly one of the best out there. If, by some odd chance, you ever get the opportunity to see it...don't pass it by.

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Harrison Bergeron (1995):

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/30/130630.jpg

Plot: Set in a familiar, yet futuristic America, Harrison stands a head above his peers. He's smarter, stronger, and better looking...and the government simply can't stand for that. You see, in the aftermath of the second American Revolution, the government decided that the only way to ever create true peace is by doing away with envy. If all men are equal, there is no envy. So, the government takes it upon itself to used headbands to "handicap" those who are at all advanced.

Comments: I am comfortable saying that you've never seen this film. I'm also comfortable in saying that's a crying shame. The story is a great one, very Orwellian in nature. It deals with a futuristic, totalitarian American government that forces every citizen to wear a "band." This band handicaps those that are in any way, shape, or form above than the societal average...the idea being that if everybody is equal, there will be no envy, and if there is no envy, there will be no violence. With a biting sense of satire, the story shows how the idea of egalitarianism, when combined with authoritarianism, gives way to horrific repression.

Harrison Bergeron is a teenager living in this oppressive society. Even with his band on, he's always been smarter than his classmates. When a wedding is planned for him, he begins to wonder if maybe there's more out there for him than a life of mediocrity. The tale is based on the short story of the same title by the great Kurt Vonnegut Jr. The adaptation stars a very convincing Sean Astin, and features supporting performances by the likes of Christopher Plummer and Eugene Levy.

I'm not going to much trouble with this review because, simply put, you'll never see this film. It's not available on DVD. VHS copies regularly go for upwards of $40. It's so obscure that the best photo I could find was the small picture you see above. Luckily, I was fortunate enough to catch it on cable at 3:00 or 4:00am...otherwise, I'd never have known it was out there. Anyway, it's a great story (very much like Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," but not as out there in it's set design). It's got a few plot holes, and a bit of rough-around-the-edges acting...but as far as made-for-TV films go, it's certainly one of the best out there. If, by some odd chance, you ever get the opportunity to see it...don't pass it by.

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Super Size Me (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002OXVBO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: America is the fattest nation on earth. People are always on the go, so it's no surprise that America is also the birthplace of fast food. The two, large waistlines and fast food consumption, go hand in hand. So, did you ever wonder what would happen if you ate nothing but fast food for an entire month? If you're a college kid, you probably know what would happen. However, director Morgan Spurlock decided to take it to the extreme: he would consume nothing but McDonalds for 30 days. If it wasn't on McDonalds' menu, he wasn't eating it. 3 meals a day, plus a snack before bed, and absolutely no exercise. If they ask him whether or not he wants to "Super Size it," he must say yes. This is his story.

Comments: Since this film is a documentary, this is kind of a difficult review for me to write up. I suppose I'll start by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed it. That is due, in large part, to the film's director and star, Morgan Spurlock. Simply put, he's a likeable guy...and that's what makes this documentary work. The same can be said for Michael Moore. Even if you hate the guy's views, even if you hate him on a personal level, you can admit that he's got a certain charisma about him that makes people want to listen. This is the key to his success, and the same can be said for Spurlock.

While one would expect a detrimental effect on Spurlock's health, the results are shockingly extreme. With the assistance of a team of doctors, Spurlock's weight, and his health, are monitored as they take a nosedive over a short one month span. Spurlock also dedicates a 10-15 minute segment of his film to coverage of the food served at school cafeterias, and another portion of the film's runtime is used to point out the way fast food companies market their product to children. So, even though the heart of this film is nothing more than "watch me eat food and gain weight," it does offer enough variety to make it's hour and a half runtime seem anything but forced and repetitive.

Night and Fog remains the best documentary I've ever seen, and one of the greatest films I've ever seen. Super Size Me, however, does manage to rocket into the number two documentary spot. It's funny, informative, well built, and it succeeds in displaying a certain level of shock-value. If you're looking for a light-hearted documentary, or you're curious about exactly how bad mass consumption of fast food can be for you (Spurlock consumed one pound of sugar, and one fourth of a pound of fat, per DAY), this is certainly the film for you. It was one of the most talked about films at last years SxSW and Sundance film festivals...and rightfully so. In it's genre, it's one of the best. Check it out.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Sundance Film Festival - Best Director (Spurlock)
2004 Sundance Film Festival Nomination - Grand Jury Prize, Documentary (Best Picture)

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Magnolia (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CWTI.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Two stories are told, each featuring a broad cast of characters that somehow revolve around a man facing his death. As the two men attempt to rectify their wrongs before their time comes, we take a peek into their lives, as well as the lives of those around them; a cocaine addict, a pre-teen whiz kid, a middle-aged ex-whiz kid, a Los Angeles police officer, a gold-digging wife, a male nurse, and a misogynistic self-help guru.

Comments: I went in expecting to fall in love with this film. Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the most acclaimed young directors working today. I loved Punch-Drunk Love, and thoroughly enjoyed Boogie Nights. So, naturally, I figured his most acclaimed film, Magnolia, would take a place among my list of favorites. Sadly, this wasn't the case. The film was good, don't get me wrong...but it just wasn't the masterpiece I expected when I popped in the DVD.

I'll start with my praises. First and foremost, the acting. Some scenes do feel a bit overacted, but for the most part, this is one of the most well-acted films I've sat through in quite a while. Tom Cruise, who is nowhere in the neighborhood of my list of favorite actors, turns in a stellar performance. William H. Macy and Philip Seymour Hoffman turn in equally brilliant performances. Julianne Moore is good, but her character is so overly dramatic that her acting, while appropriate, turned me off a bit. Philip Baker Hall and Jason Robards round out the cast with quite possibly the best performances of the bunch.

I like the general premise of the film. The main themes of the film are forgiveness and retribution. The numerous characters are all, in their own way, coping with broken bonds of communication and family. The film is very honest in it's portrayal of lost or damaged relationships, and personal shortcomings...and each character plays an integral role in the film's development. Without each and every one of them, the film simply would not feel complete. As such, it's three hour runtime never seems forced, since we're constantly witnessing the development of one of the numerous characters, each as crucial as the last.

However, in lieu of the large number of characters, I was left feeling detached from the film as a whole. The film's theme is carried only by the audience's attachment to it's characters, and that, in my opinion, was Magnolia's main shortcoming. With such a broad spectrum of characters and emotions, I was never really given the opportunity to form a deep or personal, viewer-character bond with one particular person. As such, I didn't attain the level of attachment necessary for me to feel affected by any particular tragedy or redemption. Therefore, the emotional onslaught with which this film lives or dies simply falls a bit short.

The direction was great, with camerawork alone that makes the 3-hour film worth a second look. The "final twist," which was about as unexpected as frogs falling from the sky, was the perfect way to wrap things up. If you've seen the film, and want a more in-depth explanation as to why I loved this very controversial segment, PM me or make a post in the discussion thread.

The musical score was among the best I've ever heard. There was one particular montage that is rivaled only by the closing scenes in Donnie Darko (note: the song accompanying this montage received Academy Award, Grammy, and Golden Globe Nominations). Incidentally, it's my second favorite musical montage of the film, with the nod going to one the opening scenes (a scene which serves as an introduction to our characters). This does tie in a bit with a complaint I have, though: the sound is a bit poor at times, with music that seems to be in the foreground, and important conversation reduced to mere background noise. I actually watched two scenes with subtitles on, for fear I'd miss something of importance. Simply a case of poor sound work drawing forth an easily avoidable complaint.

All in all, it was a very good film that I anticipate will grow on me in retrospect, or with multiple viewings. If that's the case, I'll come back and add an updated score. However, as things stand, I simply didn't think it was as good as it's been made out to be. Don't go in expecting a masterpiece. Don't go in expecting conventional storytelling. In fact, don't go in with any expectations. Magnolia is well worth a look, as long as it's an objective one. Don't build it up, and you won't be let down.

Awards & Nominations:
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Tom Cruise)
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Song
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2000 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Cruise)
2000 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Song
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Compilation Soundtrack
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Score Soundtrack
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Song Written for Motion Picture

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #178)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Magnolia (1999):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CWTI.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Two stories are told, each featuring a broad cast of characters that somehow revolve around a man facing his death. As the two men attempt to rectify their wrongs before their time comes, we take a peek into their lives, as well as the lives of those around them; a cocaine addict, a pre-teen whiz kid, a middle-aged ex-whiz kid, a Los Angeles police officer, a gold-digging wife, a male nurse, and a misogynistic self-help guru.

Comments: I went in expecting to fall in love with this film. Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the most acclaimed young directors working today. I loved Punch-Drunk Love, and thoroughly enjoyed Boogie Nights. So, naturally, I figured his most acclaimed film, Magnolia, would take a place among my list of favorites. Sadly, this wasn't the case. The film was good, don't get me wrong...but it just wasn't the masterpiece I expected when I popped in the DVD.

I'll start with my praises. First and foremost, the acting. Some scenes do feel a bit overacted, but for the most part, this is one of the most well-acted films I've sat through in quite a while. Tom Cruise, who is nowhere in the neighborhood of my list of favorite actors, turns in a stellar performance. William H. Macy and Philip Seymour Hoffman turn in equally brilliant performances. Julianne Moore is good, but her character is so overly dramatic that her acting, while appropriate, turned me off a bit. Philip Baker Hall and Jason Robards round out the cast with quite possibly the best performances of the bunch.

I like the general premise of the film. The main themes of the film are forgiveness and retribution. The numerous characters are all, in their own way, coping with broken bonds of communication and family. The film is very honest in it's portrayal of lost or damaged relationships, and personal shortcomings...and each character plays an integral role in the film's development. Without each and every one of them, the film simply would not feel complete. As such, it's three hour runtime never seems forced, since we're constantly witnessing the development of one of the numerous characters, each as crucial as the last.

However, in lieu of the large number of characters, I was left feeling detached from the film as a whole. The film's theme is carried only by the audience's attachment to it's characters, and that, in my opinion, was Magnolia's main shortcoming. With such a broad spectrum of characters and emotions, I was never really given the opportunity to form a deep or personal, viewer-character bond with one particular person. As such, I didn't attain the level of attachment necessary for me to feel affected by any particular tragedy or redemption. Therefore, the emotional onslaught with which this film lives or dies simply falls a bit short.

The direction was great, with camerawork alone that makes the 3-hour film worth a second look. The "final twist," which was about as unexpected as frogs falling from the sky, was the perfect way to wrap things up. If you've seen the film, and want a more in-depth explanation as to why I loved this very controversial segment, PM me or make a post in the discussion thread.

The musical score was among the best I've ever heard. There was one particular montage that is rivaled only by the closing scenes in Donnie Darko (note: the song accompanying this montage received Academy Award, Grammy, and Golden Globe Nominations). Incidentally, it's my second favorite musical montage of the film, with the nod going to one the opening scenes (a scene which serves as an introduction to our characters). This does tie in a bit with a complaint I have, though: the sound is a bit poor at times, with music that seems to be in the foreground, and important conversation reduced to mere background noise. I actually watched two scenes with subtitles on, for fear I'd miss something of importance. Simply a case of poor sound work drawing forth an easily avoidable complaint.

All in all, it was a very good film that I anticipate will grow on me in retrospect, or with multiple viewings. If that's the case, I'll come back and add an updated score. However, as things stand, I simply didn't think it was as good as it's been made out to be. Don't go in expecting a masterpiece. Don't go in expecting conventional storytelling. In fact, don't go in with any expectations. Magnolia is well worth a look, as long as it's an objective one. Don't build it up, and you won't be let down.

Awards & Nominations:
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Tom Cruise)
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Song
2000 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
2000 Golden Globe - Best Supporting Actor (Cruise)
2000 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Song
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Compilation Soundtrack
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Score Soundtrack
2001 Grammy Nomination - Best Song Written for Motion Picture

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #178)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000035Z3J.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: "Fast Times" follows a mixed group of students who happen to attend the same high school, Ridgemont High. From the stoner to the burger boy, the reserved guy to the curious virgin, we follow this group of high schoolers as they work, hang out, attend class, and go out on dates.

Comments: This is near the top of it's genre. There just aren't that many films about wild, young school-kids that are as entertaining as Fast Times. In a film of this type, direction and acting really don't count for all that much. Nobody sits down for a viewing of Fast Times at Ridgemont High (or American Pie, or Animal House, or any comparable film) expecting Oscar-worthy performances and a groundbreaking plot. Why do we see these films? To be entertained.

Keeping that in mind, Fast Times comes with my highest possible recommendation. Sean Penn is perfect in his role as the lovable stoner, Jeff Spicoli. The rest of the cast, though not as memorable, are all convincing...from Judge Reinhold, to Jennifer Jason Leigh, to the strikingly beautiful Phoebe Cates. The plot is decent, though rather uneventful. There are a few happenings, but there's no one driving force or goal as there is in American Pie, or Animal House. Perhaps part of this film's charm lies in it's waywardness.

This film lives or dies by it's humor...and trust me when I say that not only does it live, it excels. There are a handful of funny segments tossed about...but they're spaced between scenes featuring Sean Penn's character, who totally steals the show. Every scene he's in provides at least one "laugh out loud" moment, if not more.

This might be an overstatement...but I honestly believe that this is the best film that Cameron Crowe has ever been involved with (including Academy Award winners "Jerry McGuire" and "Almost Famous," along with the acclaimed "Vanilla Sky"). If you're looking for a lighthearted film with which to pass your time...or you're in the mood for a teenage film or some 80's nostalgia...Fast Times is definitely the film for you. Those who have never seen it are truly missing one of the best films in the genre.

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.1/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Hard Eight (1996):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000K3D3.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: John is down on his luck...sitting outside of a diner. Along comes Sydney, who offers to buy John a cup of coffee. Sydney then takes John to Reno where he shows him how to get a free room without losing much, if any money. With Sydney as a mentor, John carves a niche for himself as a professional gambler. All is well...then a waitress named Clementine, and a Reno-man named Jimmy come into the picture and change the dynamic a bit.

Comments: This is one of the better debut films I've seen from any of the modern filmmakers. There's one thing that makes a young director a fan favorite: a strong debut picture. Quentin Tarantino had Reservoir Dogs, Kevin Smith had Clerks, Christopher Nolan had Following, Wes Anderson had Bottle Rocket, and P.T. Anderson has Hard Eight. All directors, with Smith as a possible exception, went on to produce amazing films that surpassed their wonderful debut efforts. Anderson is no exception. However, that doesn't mean this is a film to be overlooked.

This film's true strength lies in it's story. The acting is good, but not award worthy. The direction is wonderful, as is the dialogue...but the story carries the picture. I will say this much about the direction and dialogue, though: the opening scene or two could have easily passed as a Quentin Tarantino film. After that point, it moves more into Anderson's character-study mold, which isn't at all a bad thing.

Philip Baker Hall is amazing in his role. He surprisingly outshines the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L. Jackson, who are both great in their roles. John C. Reilly rounds out a cast that, in my mind, is absolute perfection. Most of the time, there's a list of people who would be acceptable in certain roles...but I honestly can't see anybody else playing the role of the four main characters.

This film has all of it's bases covered, with no major complaints that I can offer up. It holds it's own with Paul Thomas Anderson's outstanding follow-up films...which is saying quite a lot. If you ever get the chance to see this under-appreciated film, don't pass it by.

Awards & Nominations:
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best First Feature (Anderson)
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Cinematography
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Screenplay
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Male Lead (Hall)
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Supporting Male (Jackson)

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Hard Eight (1996):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000K3D3.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

Plot: John is down on his luck...sitting outside of a diner. Along comes Sydney, who offers to buy John a cup of coffee. Sydney then takes John to Reno where he shows him how to get a free room without losing much, if any money. With Sydney as a mentor, John carves a niche for himself as a professional gambler. All is well...then a waitress named Clementine, and a Reno-man named Jimmy come into the picture and change the dynamic a bit.

Comments: This is one of the better debut films I've seen from any of the modern filmmakers. There's one thing that makes a young director a fan favorite: a strong debut picture. Quentin Tarantino had Reservoir Dogs, Kevin Smith had Clerks, Christopher Nolan had Following, Wes Anderson had Bottle Rocket, and P.T. Anderson has Hard Eight. All directors, with Smith as a possible exception, went on to produce amazing films that surpassed their wonderful debut efforts. Anderson is no exception. However, that doesn't mean this is a film to be overlooked.

This film's true strength lies in it's story. The acting is good, but not award worthy. The direction is wonderful, as is the dialogue...but the story carries the picture. I will say this much about the direction and dialogue, though: the opening scene or two could have easily passed as a Quentin Tarantino film. After that point, it moves more into Anderson's character-study mold, which isn't at all a bad thing.

Philip Baker Hall is amazing in his role. He surprisingly outshines the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L. Jackson, who are both great in their roles. John C. Reilly rounds out a cast that, in my mind, is absolute perfection. Most of the time, there's a list of people who would be acceptable in certain roles...but I honestly can't see anybody else playing the role of the four main characters.

This film has all of it's bases covered, with no major complaints that I can offer up. It holds it's own with Paul Thomas Anderson's outstanding follow-up films...which is saying quite a lot. If you ever get the chance to see this under-appreciated film, don't pass it by.

Awards & Nominations:
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best First Feature (Anderson)
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Cinematography
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Screenplay
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Male Lead (Hall)
1998 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Supporting Male (Jackson)

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.3/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Blue Velvet (1986):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000063JDE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Jeffrey Beaumont, who was attending college out of town, returns to his hometown of Lumberton when he gets word that his father is in the hospital. Shortly thereafter, he finds a human ear in a field. After turning it in to the police, he's refused details of the case. Not content with being on the outside of an investigation he helped kick start, Jeffrey starts his own investigation with the help of the daughter of one of the detectives. He's led into the apartment of a mysterious woman, and, consequently, the dark underside of his seemingly peaceful community.

Comments: I viewed this film last night. While watching it, I was repulsed. After watching it, I was bewildered. A day later, I'm left in amazement. This is a truly remarkable piece of work. Velvet director David Lynch left me uncertain with the first film of his that I viewed; Mulholland Drive. It was a great film, no doubt, but it was so complex and open-to-interpretation that I was unsure whether or not Lynch was the type of director whose entire resume I would enjoy. After watching Blue Velvet, my hope is renewed.

The story is somewhat simple, but the film is anything but traditional. There are a few filming gimmicks used by Lynch that are out of the ordinary...but they worked here. I think what flabbergasts most viewers, myself included, is the cast of characters. Dennis Hopper's character, Frank Booth, is one of the most evil and sadistic characters to ever hit the screen. He is, in my opinion, comparable to A Clockwork Orange's Alex de Large.

This leads me to one aspect of the film that I must both praise and criticize: the acting. Dennis Hopper and Isabella Rossellini are astounding. This is Dennis Hopper's best work ever, as he turns in a performance that ranks up there with some of the best of all time. Though Hopper steals the show, Rossellini is beyond convincing in her role. However, not all is well in Lumberton. The male lead, played by Kyle MacLachlan, is nothing beyond mediocre. He's real...but almost too real. I'll compare him to Ben Affleck, in the sense that he's not painful to watch. He doesn't do a bad job of acting, he just doesn't really...act. Laura Dern takes it a step beyond that with a rather laughable performance. I never thought I'd see such a broad spectrum of acting skill mixed in one motion picture.

If you intend to see this film, be certain you do so with an open mind. Go in with the understanding that this film is intended to show that even the most peaceful of communities have a dark underbelly. In Blue Velvet, it's as black as midnight. Some scenes are hard to watch. There is no big surprise payoff at the end of the film. Blue Velvet is what it is: a sometimes dark, but sometimes lighthearted and loving character study. If you go in with an open mind, you will likely view the same, brilliant film that I did. If you don't, well...there's no accounting for taste. Well worth a watch.

Awards & Nominations:
1987 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Lynch)
1987 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Hopper)
1987 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

I Vitelloni

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002DB4YQ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: I Vitelloni tells the tale of a group friends, stuck in a town which they loathe with no sign of change. They're all 20 or 30 somethings, not a steady job among them. Fausto is skirt-chasing fellow, forced to marry a girl he impregnated. That girl happens to be the sister of Moraldo, the only one of the group with a moral conscience. Alberto is the eternal child stuck in a man's body...and Leopaldo, a writer thirsting for fame, rounds out the group.

Comments: I Vitelloni is Federico Fellini's third feature film. It's not his best work, but his potential is quite evident. Watching this film, it's no surprise that he went on to make such greats as 8½, La Strada, Amarcord, Nights of Cabriria, and La Dolce Vita. This film is a great character study, telling the story of a group of small-town guys struggling to find meaning in their lives. Though not as good, it does manage to shine in a manner similar to that of 8½. It's quite obvious, watching this film, that it was a personal picture for Fellini. It is, in a sense, autobiographical in nature.

This film is championed by most who view it as one of Fellini's best. Having seen only three of his films, I'm already inclined to disagree. However, that's not to say that this film is anything short of brilliant. I do believe, contrary to the film's lone Academy Award nomination, that I Vitelloni's main flaw lies in it's screenplay. The story is a great one. The characters, on the other hand, are not that well drawn. The main couple, Fausto and Sandra, are beautifully portrayed. The secondary characters, however, seem to serve as nothing more than filler. They play an integral role in the film, to the extent that I Vitelloni simply wouldn't be the same without them. As such, I feel they should be more defined than they are.

None of this is to say that this isn't a great film. It's still better than most, and it's one of many standout works in the career of one of the world's master directors. I just don't think it stands up in contest with Fellini's better pictures. In the end, it's a great story with good acting, and superior direction...though a handful of the characters leave a bit to be desired. If you've got worldly tastes, and an appreciation for foreign cinema, this is one of the numerous must see films that make up the filmography of a true genius. Just don't expect it to be on the level of greatness that his best films reached.

Awards & Nominations:
1958 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Screenplay
1953Venice Film Festival - Silver Lion
1953Venice Film Festival Nomination - Gold Lion

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.7/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Four Rooms (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305327041.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: It's New Year's eve at the Mon Signor Hotel, a former Hollywood-haven that has seen it's better days. Ted is the only bellhop on duty, and it happens to be his first night on the job. Through the night, he encounters everything from a coven of witches, to a maniac with a gun, to a pair of troublemaking kids, to a movie star and his acquaintances. It is anything but a peaceful first night on the job for Ted the bellhop.

Comments: Well, this is a film that I'm going to be reviewing a bit differently. It contains four different segments, done by four different writer/directors, cinematographers, editors, and groups of actors. The only common link is the hotel in which everything takes place, and the bellhop, played brilliantly by Tim Roth. Roth's acting saves a character that I feel was written a bit too over-the-top for my liking. He enters the realm of realism near the end of the picture...but for the first half, he's so wildly energetic and overblown that it becomes more of a distraction than anything else. So, on to the segments:

Allison Anders (Segment - "The Missing Ingredient"):
This is, by far, the worst segment of the film. Sadly, it's also the first...so it sets a very poor tone for the rest of the film. As this segment came to a close, I caught myself wondering what I was doing watching this film, and if it was going to become the first film in close to a decade that I never stopped watching, and never bothered finishing. See, I'm a strong advocate of the idea that, before one can criticize a picture, one must see it in it's entirety. This segment, with it's poor acting, ludicrous plot, cheesy special effects, and complete lack of humor, nearly ruined the entire film for me. If you have the DVD, you're lucky that you can just skip right over "The Missing Ingredient." F-

Alexandre Rockwell (Segment - "The Wrong Man"):
This is the second worst segment of the film, and, you guessed it...it comes second. After sitting through this segment, which was bad, but not as awful as the one that preceded it, I had just about lost all hope for the film. Even acknowledging the fact that Rockwell had only 20 minutes to work with...I must say that the characters were very, very poorly drawn. Their actions were good for a chuckle or two, at the most...but it's tough to ignore the fact that we have no explanation about why we're seeing what we're seeing. Mediocre acting and direction, paired with poor writing. D+

Robert Rodriguez (Segment - "The Misbehavers"):
And here, in our third segment, I come to realize why I bothered with this film in the first place. I adore Quentin Tarantino. He's responsible for my favorite film of all time, and he's among my list of favorite directors. He's the reason I bothered to watch Four Rooms in the first place. Having said all of that, I have no qualms about admitting that Robert Rodriguez is responsible for the best segment of the film. Good acting from Antonio Banderas, spectacular writing (in both dialogue and story), and strong direction. A+

Quentin Tarantino (Segment - "The Man From Hollywood"):
The film closes out with it's second best segment. The dialogue is decent (though it must certainly break a record for the most four-letter words in a 20-minute span). The acting is all over the board, with a couple of strong performances, and a couple of poor ones. The story is the heart of the segment, and carries it through all of it's downfalls. It is surpassed only by the direction. Tarantino films his segment with a number of extremely lengthy, continuous shots. Impressive stuff. B+

Awards & Nominations:
1996 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Sandwich in a Movie (...I shit you not. Only on MTV.)

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.9/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Four Rooms (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305327041.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: It's New Year's eve at the Mon Signor Hotel, a former Hollywood-haven that has seen it's better days. Ted is the only bellhop on duty, and it happens to be his first night on the job. Through the night, he encounters everything from a coven of witches, to a maniac with a gun, to a pair of troublemaking kids, to a movie star and his acquaintances. It is anything but a peaceful first night on the job for Ted the bellhop.

Comments: Well, this is a film that I'm going to be reviewing a bit differently. It contains four different segments, done by four different writer/directors, cinematographers, editors, and groups of actors. Therefore, some each segment will carry with it it's own list of pros and cons. The only common link is the hotel in which everything takes place, and the bellhop, played rather well by Tim Roth. Roth's acting saves a character that I feel was written a bit too over-the-top for my liking. He enters the realm of realism near the end of the picture...but for the first half, he's so wildly energetic and overblown that it becomes more of a distraction than anything else. So, on to the segments:

Allison Anders (Segment - "The Missing Ingredient"):
This is, by far, the worst segment of the film. Sadly, it's also the first...so it sets a very poor tone for the rest of the film. As this segment came to a close, I caught myself wondering what I was doing watching this film, and if it was going to become the first film in close to a decade that I stopped watching, and never bothered finishing. See, I'm a strong advocate of the idea that, before one can criticize a picture, they must see it in it's entirety. This segment, with it's poor acting, ludicrous plot, cheesy special effects, and complete lack of humor, nearly ruined the entire film for me. If you have the DVD, you're lucky that you can just skip right over "The Missing Ingredient." F-

Alexandre Rockwell (Segment - "The Wrong Man"):
This is the second worst segment of the film, and, you guessed it...it's also the second segment in the film. After sitting through this segment, which was bad, but not as awful as the one that preceded it, I had just about lost all hope for the film. Even acknowledging the fact that Rockwell had only 20 minutes to work with...I must say that the characters were very, very poorly drawn. Their actions were good for a chuckle or two, at the most...but it's tough to ignore the fact that we have no explanation about why we're seeing what we're seeing. Mediocre acting and direction, paired with poor writing. D+

Robert Rodriguez (Segment - "The Misbehavers"):
And here, in our third segment, I come to realize why I bothered with this film in the first place. I adore Quentin Tarantino. He's responsible for my favorite film of all time, and he's among my list of favorite directors. He's the reason I bothered to watch Four Rooms in the first place. Having said all of that, I have no qualms about admitting that Robert Rodriguez is responsible for the best segment of the film. Good acting from Antonio Banderas, spectacular writing (in both dialogue and story), and strong direction. A+

Quentin Tarantino (Segment - "The Man From Hollywood"):
The film closes out with it's second best segment. The dialogue is decent (though it must certainly break a record for the most four-letter words in a 20-minute span). The acting is all over the board, with a couple of strong performances, and a couple of poor ones. The story is the heart of the segment, and carries it through all of it's downfalls. It is surpassed only by the direction. Tarantino films his segment with a number of extremely lengthy, continuous shots. Impressive stuff. B+

Awards & Nominations:
1996 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Sandwich in a Movie (...I shit you not. Only on MTV.)

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.9/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Stuck On You (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMG8.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The relationship between Bob and Walt, conjoined twins from Martha's Vineyard, is put to the test when the two move out to Hollywood so Walt can pursue his acting career. Things start well, with Walt landing a role on Cher's new TV show. However, success threatens to drive the two apart, and there are lies, secrets, and women around every corner.

Comments: This was a decent little comedy. It had a few touching moments, but not that many truly funny moments. One thing is for sure, it certainly didn't live up to the prior works of Bobby and Peter Farrelly. The Farrelly Brothers are the guys who brought us films like Dumb & Dumber, Kingpin, and There's Something About Mary. Therefore, you come to expect something quite funny anytime you go to see a film by this renowned comedic pair. Unfortunately, they don't deliver here...not in the way that they've delivered before.

The acting was decent, given the script these people were working with. The two leads, Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear, stole the show...with the beautiful Eva Mendes and company doing nothing too special (despite one claim I've read that claims her to be behind the best performance of the bunch). This film, along with the Farrelly's last film, Shallow Hal, seems more dramatic than comedic. They're letting their characters take over, and letting the trashcan humor that made them famous take a backseat.

I have no doubt that they can branch into drama...however I think they're trying to ease into that realm by letting more and more drama shine through in their comedies. What we're left with is neither dramatic masterpiece, nor comedic masterpiece. Instead, it's a slightly enjoyable combination of both. In my eyes, when you cross genres in a film, you take your audience out of the picture. When they momentarily cease to laugh, or cease to be emotionally involved...which happens any time you cross out of your fundamental genre, they're removed from the film. Therefore, I've never really cared for pictures of this nature.

I suppose that for what it is, Stuck on You is a good film. However, I think it's genre is rather bottom-barrel, so it really doesn't have any room to shine. It's not comedy, and it's not drama. Therefore, it can't shine with nonstop laughter because the audience is too busy becoming involved with the characters, and it can't shine with it's story because the audience is too busy laughing at the occasional silly joke. It's stuck in the nest of mediocrity that it's created for itself. Hopefully this is a stepping stone to greater things. Hopefully.

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Whale Rider (2003):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000CABBW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Set in New Zealand, the Whangara people believe that their ancestors line back to a single relative, the great Paikea, who escaped his capsized canoe and the ocean waters by riding a whale back to shore. From then on, Whangara chiefs...always the first-born, and always male, have been considered Paikea's direct descendants. Pai, an 11-year old girl, is the only child of Porourangi, and believes she's the rightful heir to chiefdom. Her grandfather, Moro, clings to the notion that the next chief must be a man. Despite her undying love for Moro, she must fight him, and tradition, to fulfill her destiny.

Comments: Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine says it perfectly. "There's magic in it." But then, I suppose that why his quote is on the cover of the DVD cover, isn't it? Whatever the case, this film is truly enchanting...one of the best modern dramas to hit the screen. The film has many bright spots, but it's true strength is it's screenplay. The story, based on Sir Witi Ihimaera's novel of the same name, is a timeless one.

The screenplay isn't the only good thing about this film, though...far from it. The acting is superb, with the 12-year old star Keisha Castle-Hughes turning in one of the best debut performances in recent memory. She definitely earned her Academy Award nomination, that's for sure. The supporting cast keeps right up, led by Rawiri Paratene as the Koro, the young girl's grandfather.

The direction is the last piece of the puzzle, and it, too, is above average. I suppose it was helped along by the fact that it was filmed at a wonderful location. It's hard to fuck up amazing, tone-setting scenery. Niki Caro did more than just film some pretty landscaping, though...she managed to bring it, and the characters, to life. The musical score is decent, too. The film, strong in all aspects, really hit a homerun in my book. Thoroughly entertaining...and I wholeheartedly disagree with one review I read that stated that "this film is perfect for young girls." While it does have it's "girl-power" elements, I say it's perfect for everyone, which is why I'll recommend that you see it if ever given the chance.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actress (Keisha Castle-Hughes)
2004 Independent Spirit Award - Best Foreign Film
2003 Sundance Film Fesitval - Audience Award
2002 Toronto Film Festival - People's Choice Award
Nominated for 15 New Zealand Film Awards, Winner of 9.

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.0/10 (Top 250 - #229)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Shawshank Redemption (1994):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000399WI.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Set in the 1940's and 50's, the film opens at the trial of Andy Dufresne, a successful young banker charges with the murder of his wife. With mountains of evidence stacked against him, he's convicted in an open-and-shut case. He is sent to serve the rest of his natural life behind bars at Maine's Shawshank State Prison. While there, he attempts to earn respect and a couple of friends, fight off his enemies, and, ultimately, find redemption in any form.

Comments: This is one of my favorite movies. It's one of the greatest films of the 90's, it's one of the greatest films of the last half-century, and it's one of the greatest films of all-time. I do believe it's as simple as that. The film just works on every level. It is both heartwarming and cold, filled with hope and overflowing with despair. The characters are lovable men who has allegedly committed atrocious crimes.

I believe this film works so well for a number of levels. For starters, it remains true to it's subject, something that every film must strive to do. It nails the in's and out's of prison life so perfectly, in fact, that the final in my Penology class (the study of prisons, for those who can't connect the dots) was a review of this film. With close to a year of this thread behind me, you all can guess what grade I received on that paper. So that's the first thing...it remains true to it's subject matter. The second thing is a related matter. The film remains true to it's time period. Filmed in the 1990's, you'd be hard pressed to tell that this isn't "cleaned-up footage" that was shot in the 1940's and 50's.

The next thing this film does is give itself away to it's characters. This works only because of the brilliant performances from Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins. The film lives or dies by it's characters, and they shine so brightly that the film reaches unimaginable heights. I suppose the performances had a lot to do with the direction...as did the film's wonderful cinematography and pacing. Never does the film drag, nor does it move too quickly.

The final thing this film strives upon is it's screenplay. Simply put, I believe this is one of the greatest stories told by modern man. Based on the short story by Stephen King, and adapted by Frank Darabont, it has everything anybody could ask for in a screenplay. Love and hate, passion and apathy, hope and despair...it's a roller coaster ride like no other. If you have never seen this film, I ask that...no, I demand that you go rent it right now. It is one of the greats, and I give my personal guarantee that you'll love it.

For those who have seen the film, I've attached to this review my brief, 2-page Penology essay. Just a little something extra for those that enjoy reading my reviews, and an idea of the types of things I would include if forced to write longer reviews. It's a rather informal essay that I threw together in 10 or 15 minutes, but it's apparently all that was required for me to get the 'A.' Fair warning to those who haven't yet seen this great film: the attached essay contains a number of spoilers. I beg of you, don't read it before watching the movie. You'll ruin parts of what I consider to be one of the greatest films ever made.

Awards & Nominations:
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Adapted Screeplay
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (Morgan Freeman)
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Cinematography
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Score
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1995 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor (Freeman)
1995 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay
1995 Grammy Nomination - Best Instrumental Composition

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 9.0/10 (Top 250 - #3)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Usual Suspects (1995):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000K0DT.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Five career criminals are rounded up for a police line-up. This isn't the norm, so the five feel that something is amiss. After the line-up, they decide to get together for a "revenge job" of sorts, led by the revered Dean Keaton. After their job somehow results in a waterfront explosion, Verbal Kint, an eye-witness and participant in the events, tells his side of the story. There are two questions on everybody's mind. The first: How in the world did we end up with 27 dead bodies, $91 million in drug money, 0 drugs, and 2 survivors? The second: ...who is Keizer Soze?

Comments: This film is everything that a crime mystery should strive to be. It has a strong cast playing strong characters. Kevin Spacey took home his first ever Oscar for his spectacular performance in this film. The crazy thing? I believe that Benicio Del Toro, who is vastly under-appreciated as an actor, turned in the best performance of the picture. This under-appreciation (at the time), paired with the fact that he had a very small role, and an accent made him a bit difficult to understand some of the time, makes it no surprise to me that he was overlooked by the Academy. Spacey certainly deserved his golden guy, though.

The story is the true star of this film. There are numerous questions left in the air that aren't answered until the final frames of the film. There are twists and turns, something new at every corner. This is due, in large part, to the supreme directorial job by Bryan Singer in this, only his second full-length feature film. He went on to great things with the X-Men films and the new hit dramatic series "House." Oh yeah, he was also picked to direct the most recent adaptation of a little series called Superman...I don't know if you've heard of it? And it all started with this little film.

I'm not sure what more to say about this film, really. If you're a fan of good acting, good direction, and a great little crime story...you're destined to appreciate The Usual Suspects. If you don't like these things, well then, I just don't think you're a fan of cinema at all. So, A + B = if you like movies, you'll like this one. See it.

Awards & Nominations:
1996 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
1996 Academy Award - Best Supporting Actor (Kevin Spacey)
1996 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Spacey)
1996 Independent Spirit Award - Best Screenplay
1996 Independent Spirit Award - Best Supporting Actor (Del Toro)
1996 Independent Spirit Nomination - Best Cinematography

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.7/10 (Top 250 - #18)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Citizen Kane (1941):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CX9E.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Powerful newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane dies alone in his extravagant mansion, Xanadu, with a single word on his lips: Rosebud. With his mind set on figuring out the meaning of the word, a reporter sets out on a journey through Kane's life, tracking down anybody who ever knew, loved, or had a relationship with the multimillionaire. It is through their words that the story of the great Citizen Kane is told to the world.

Comments: Until this weekend, I had never once viewed this film. It has been in my collection for a while, but I've revered it so much that I never wanted to view it. This contradictory logic was based on the notion that there was no way in which the film could live up to my unrealistic expectations of it. I finally got in the mood for a classic, and decided to pop in the film that has been labeled by many as "the greatest motion picture of all-time."

I must say, not only was I not let down...I was more blown away than I could have expected. The film tells a story similar to that of Forrest Gump, and Big Fish, a story of a fictional man who was larger than life itself. This film is hailed by most for it's technical prowess, and rightfully so. I'll touch on that later, but I want to make clear that not only is this one of the most technically sound films of it's, or any other time...but it's also just a damn fine story.

Kane is portrayed brilliantly by the great Orson Welles. In fact, Orson Welles has become, in my mind's eye, a true-life Citizen Kane...not in personality or fame, but in the sense that he is a grandiose figure, the man of men, larger than life. Not only did he star in this film, he also wrote it, directed it, produced it, and had control over it's final cut. He was granted permission to do something that'd never before been done in cinema: have complete artistic control over an entire film. It's a good thing, because he created what is hailed by most as the greatest film ever.

What makes the film so great? Well, it's story, for one. Beyond that, though, it is so technically sound that it is the perfect motion-picture, if there ever was one. It flows effortlessly from scene to scene. The camerawork is brilliant, leaving the viewer in the room with the characters, and never seeming forced. Above all else, Citizen Kane was a pioneer. It did things, many, many things that had never been done before in cinema. Take, for instance, a shot that starts outside of a building, climbs it's wall, onto it's roof, over a neon light, toward a glass ceiling, down through the window and into the restaurant, and finishes at a table occupied by two characters...without once breaking stride. Things like this had never been done in a motion picture, but Welles did it all, and did it perfectly.

This is the very essence of cinema. It is a legendary work that paved the way for everything we take for granted in modern film. It was the inspiration for many of today's great directors, and some bad ones too. It is a timeless classic that should be required viewing for every man, woman, and child. Pure perfection, and entertaining to boot.

Awards & Nominations:
1942 Academy Award - Best Original Screenplay
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Actor (Orson Welles)
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Art Direction, Black-and-White
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Cinematography
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Welles)
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Musical Score
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
1942 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
American Film Institute's Top 100 Films - #1

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.7/10 (Top 250 - #11)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Silence of the Lambs (1991):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305050058.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Clarice Starling, a young FBI agent, is ordered to track down the brutal serial killer known as Buffalo Bill, who is suspected of having kidnapped the daughter of a politician. In an attempt to get into the mind of the vicious killer, Starling enlists the help of a prisoner: Dr. Hannibal Lecter. However, before she gets any information from the brilliant, cannibalistic Dr. Lecter, Clarice must first earn both his trust and his respect.

Comments: This is the epitome of what a psychological thriller should strive to be. With a good story that's backed by great characters, The Silence of the Lambs is as thrilling as it is captivating. Anthony Hopkins is nothing short of brilliant in what is one of the most renowned performances of our time. He will forever be remembered as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, one of the most evil men to ever grace our presence via the silver-screen.

Hopkins isn't the only bright star in the bunch, though. No, Jodie Foster keeps right up with him, and even takes home a Golden Globe along with her Oscar (something that Hopkins failed to do). After making a name for herself in the Scorsese masterpiece "Taxi Driver," Foster had a drought that ended with her Academy Award performance in 1988's "The Accused." She then followed that up with her most memorable role to date, that of Clarice Starling. With a filmography as impressive as Foster's, the fact that she'll be remembered for this role speaks volumes about the film.

The direction is strong, and is half the reason that Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter is so eerily convincing. Then there's the climactic scene near the end of the film, which is, I guarantee you, unlike anything you've ever seen. The dialogue, alongside the acting, is the film's bright spot in my eyes. There are numerous standout quips from all of the character, Dr. Lecter in particular...with the most memorable being, "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."

With dialogue by that, coming from the mouth of a man that became his character through and through, there is no way that this film can be considered anything less than the greatest psychological thriller of all time. If you've never seen this film, do so. You might also want to check out the rest of the Lecter films. While the others aren't as good as this one, they are all stand-out pictures.

Awards & Nominations:
1992 Academy Award - Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins)
1992 Academy Award - Best Picture
1992 Academy Award - Best Adapted Screenplay
1992 Academy Award - Best Actress (Jodie Foster)
1992 Academy Award - Best Director (Jonathan Demme)
1992 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
1992 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
1992 Golden Globe - Best Actress, Drama (Foster)
1992 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
1992 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actor, Drama (Hopkins)
1992 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Demme)
1992 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Screenplay

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.5/10 (Top 250 - #28)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring (2001):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00003CWT6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The Dark Lord Sauron created rings of power for each of the leaders of Middle Earth. He also created a Ring of Power for himself, a ring to control all people and creatures inhabiting Middle Earth. In a great battle, the ring was seized and fell into the hands of Bilbo Baggins. It was then passed on to young Frodo Baggins, at which point it's dark powers were awoken. Frodo and his Fellowship have one task ahead of them: take the ring to the one place it can be destroyed... the fires of Mount Doom. With evil and danger lurking at every turn, this proves to be no easy task.

Comments: Until this weekend, I'd never seen a minute of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'd heard the hype. I'd seen the lists of awards and nominations. I'd seen each of the three films climb the rankings into the top 10 films of all-time on IMDB.com. I'd heard the claims that this was the best trilogy of all-time. I'd witnessed fan-boys going crazy in anticipation of the final installment, and heard word of mouth praises from people who were never before fans of the genre. Through it all, I remained skeptical. Fantasy simply doesn't cater to my tastes, I told myself. How, then, can these films be as great as they're hyped up to be? With a 3-hour runtime for each film, it seemed as if I'd never get myself into the mood to watch one.

Well, I did...and my doubts were put to rest. It took me a good half hour to become engulfed in the film, but once that happened, I was taken for the ride of a lifetime. The story is a timeless classic, and rightfully so. J.R.R. Tolkien is praised as a literary genius, praise that is deserved. Peter Jackson is listed among the great directors of our time, a place he has earned. The films are mentioned in the same breath as some of the all-time greats...and that no longer makes my skin crawl, at least not as much as it did before.

All of this praise comes with an asterisk, though. You see, I honestly don't think this film is in the same league as Citizen Kane and company. I don't think that Peter Jackson should be listed among the likes of Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock. I don't think J.R.R. Tolkien should be praised as the second-coming of William Shakespeare. These films deserve praise, but this praise must be given in the proper context. That context? Well, I'll explain my opinions on this as best I can in the following paragraph...

These films are, in my eyes, the Star Wars' of our generation. In the same way that I would never mention Star Wars alongside the likes of Seven Samurai and The Godfather, I'd never mention Lord of the Rings alongside Casablanca and Rules of the Game. The Star Wars films are classics, revered by most as some of the greatest films to hit the screen. They have an avid following, and they were the films that cemented George Lucas' spot in cinematic history. They didn't age all that well, but they are still just as amazing as they were at their premiers, because of the aura of history that comes with them.

So yes, the cinematography in Fellowship is astounding. In particular, the Elf village (I believe it was called Rivendell) was home to some of the most beautiful scenes I've ever laid eyes upon. However, in the 1970's, the alternate-world created in Star Wars was just as mind-boggling. Nobody ever imagined we'd have something like The Lord of the Rings. So, who knows how well these films will stand the test of time. It's certain that they'll forever be regarded as great, classic films that changed the scope of cinema. However, 30 years from now, will they still be regarded as technically stunning, or will they have fallen in line with King Kong and Star Wars as mere novelty items which we use to look back on technology before all of the astounding advancements? Only time will tell. For now, though, they are as masterful a demonstration of visual effects as you'll ever see. I eagerly anticipate the last two installments of the film. Reviews to come as soon as I watch them. Meanwhile, if you haven't seen these films...trust me when I say that you should cast your cynicism aside and give them a shot. You won't be let down.

Awards & Nominations:
2002 Academy Award - Best Cinematography
2002 Academy Award - Best Musical Score
2002 Academy Award - Best Make-up
2002 Academy Award - Best Visual Effects
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Picture
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Director (Peter Jackson)
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Supporting Actor (Ian McKellen)
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Costume Design
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Adapted Screenplay
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Art Direction, Set Decoration
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Editing
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Song
2002 Academy Award Nomination - Best Sound
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Director (Jackson)
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Drama
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Score
2002 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Song
2003 Grammy - Best Score Soundtrack Album
2003 Grammy Nomination - Best Song Written for a Motion Picture
2002 MTV Movie Award - Best Movie
2002 MTV Movie Award - Breakthrough Male Performance (Orlando Bloom)
2002 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Action Sequence
2002 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Fight
2002 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Male Performance (Elijah Wood)
2002 MTV Movie Award Nomination - Best Villain (Christopher Lee)

JP's Rating: 9.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 8.8/10 (Top 250 - #8)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Willy McBean & His Magic Machine (1965):

http://www.rankinbass.com/images/Willycard.jpg

http://www.rankinbass.com/images/willystill.jpg

Plot: Professor Rasputin Von Rotten, an evil genius, has devised a machine that will enable him to travel through time. He intends to use this machine for evil, by going back and rewriting history so that his name will fill the textbooks. His plan looks to be free of holes, until his talking pet monkey, Pablo, escapes. Pablo, with the time machine's blueprint in hand, goes to the home of little Willy McBean and explains the situation to him. Willy decides to go back in time and stop Von Rotten's schemes. He uses the blueprint to build his own machine, and goes from Cavemen to Camelot, Columbus to Custer, in an effort to keep Von Rotten's evil attempts at bay. Why? Well, he's a kid, and what normal kid wants to learn history all over again?

Comments: This is the first feature-length film from renowned animators Rankin and Bass. It was also the first ever stop-motion animation film to be shown in theaters. The characters are timeless. You have the evil professor, with his evil schemes and his evil lair. You have the hero, in this case, a child trying to keep from having to learn history all over again. And then you have the...racist talking Mexican monkey?

This film is both interesting, and hilarious. There are great quotes throughout...most coming from Pablo the Mexican monkey, a self-proclaimed "great Lateen luvvver." However, even figures like Christopher Columbus come through with some comedic dialogue. "Why, if it weren't for me, America would be nothing more than trees...and a couple of teepees."

This film is something than any child would most certainly enjoy, as it's packed with dinosaurs, cowboys and Indians, knights, cavemen, the Wild West, an evil professor, and ancient Egypt. It's also educational, to an extent. The question is...will adults like it? Well, in my opinion, if they have a sense of humor they will. The film is funny, and entertaining...almost whimsical. However, it does seem to drag on a bit too long, but it's an interesting film nonetheless.

JP's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.8/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JN5O.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: The parents of three wealthy children are killed in a house fire. The orphans are then sent to live with a distant relative named Count Olaf who, upon realizing their wealth, decides to steal their fortune for himself. The determined Count refuses to let anything get in his way. However, the children have different plans for themselves, their wealth, and their future.

Comments: I, like most of you, had seen the numerous trailers for this film. After watching the trailers, I had decided that I wouldn't be going out of my way to see the film. It just didn't look like something I'd be interested in. However, when I settled into my seat at Butt-Numb-a-Thon 6, I no longer had any choice of what films I'd be watching for the next twenty-four hours. So, when this early-screening was presented to me by the hosts and a couple of the young actors, who was I to complain?

I'm glad I didn't complain, because the film was so much more than I had ever expected. It's a film for the children that adults are certain to enjoy as well. Jim Carrey steals the show in his role as the evil Count Olaf. He is a chameleon, playing numerous characters in this one film. He was brilliant in Eternal Sunshine, and well above average here. You should see the film, if only for his performance (which, according to Liam and Emily, was about 50% improvisation). Meryl Streep is equally impressive, and any award nominations she gets should be for her performance this film, not from the atrocious Manchurian remake.

The children really do impress with their performances. Liam Aiken is the best of the bunch as Klaus (the intelligent bookworm), and Emily Browning keeps right up in her role as Violet (the intuitive inventor). The show-stopping child, though, was the character of Sunny (played by twins Kara and Shelby Hoffman). The pair, only a touch over two-years of age, are subtitled as they goo-goo and ga-ga throughout the picture.

Trust me when I say that this film is worth seeing. The acting is good, the story is great, and the direction is so wonderful that Tim Burton will be forced to tip his hat to Brad Silberling's job here. Jude Law, in the title role, is my favorite character. The film is so mystical that I don't see how anybody could not enjoy it. So...see it and thank me, or see it and prove me wrong. Whatever you do, though...be sure you see it.

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: N/A (Release date: December 17)

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Black Swan (1942):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6303943004.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: When the notorious pirate Captain Henry Morgan (yes, Captain Morgan) is named governer of Jamaica, he calls upon some of his former "coworkers" to help him in his task of ridding the Caribbean of thievery. One of the buccaneers, the renowned James "Jamie-Boy" Waring, develops a liking for one of the respected female citizens, Lady Margaret Denby...much to the chagrin of her fiancee. It is then discovered that a new pirate is raiding the waters of the Caribbean, and Captain Morgan enlists Jamie-Boy's help in capturing him.

Comments: Well, I was a bit wary of this screening, because I wasn't sure what to expect. However, I was more than pleasantly surprised with what I saw. For starters, the technicolor cinematography was nothing less than breathtaking...almost dreamlike in it's quality. From the opening shots of a pirate battle set against the backdrop of a beautiful sunset, the technicolor print set the perfect tone for the film.

The story is a good one, a typical good-guy vs. bad-guy tale. However, it's not certain to all of our characters just who the good guy is. Jamie-Boy thinks that Lady Denby's fiancee is the bad guy, and he reciporcates the hatred. Lady Denby dislikes the overbearing Jamie-Boy, Captain Morgan is uncertain who exactly is thieving from his territory, Captain Leech is against anybody who gets in his way, and there is no love lost between the former government of Jamaica and the new Governer Morgan. Got all of that?

It's a classic pirate tale, probably the best one ever put on the silver screen. The acting is good, with Maureen O'Hara and Tyrone Power stealing the show. The cinematography, as I've already said, is beautiful. The fight scenes are good, thanks to a nice directorial job from Henry King (who was nominated for Oscars with his work in Wilson, and The Song of Bernadette). If you like pirates, and who doesn't, be certain to check out this classic. It's one of the best.

Awards & Nominations:
1943 Academy Award - Best Cinematography, Color
1943 Academy Award Nomination - Best Special Effects
1943 Academy Award Nomination - Best Musical Score

JP's Rating: 8.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.2/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Blonde Venus (1932):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6300185702.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: An American chemist, studying in Germany, falls in love with a stage-entertainer. The two wed in America and have a child. However, when Ned falls ill with radium poisoning, he must fly back to Germany for an expensive treatment. In an attempt to raise the money for his care, Helen heads back to the stage under the title of "Blonde Venus." In an attempt to get enough money in enough time, she prostitutes herself to the handsome millionaire Nick Townsend. With Ned away, she continues her affair with Mr. Townsend...but when Ned returns and discovers her infidelity, she's forced to run so her son isn't taken from her.

Comments: The plot description only covers the first one fourth of the film or so. For the most part, it tells the story of Helen (played brilliantly by the great Marlene Dietrich) and her son Johnny, on the run from Ned and the Missing Persons Bureau. The amazing Miss Dietrich steals the show with her portrayal of Helen Faraday. Herbert Marshall is decent in his role as Ned Faraday, and a young Cary Grant's potential shines through in his portrayal of Nick Townsend, as he coasts through the role with virtually no effort (this lack of effort, though, is another thing that shines through in his performance).

I think this is one of Josef von Sternberg's greatest works, though he would probably have disagreed (and with films like Shanghai Express and Morocco under his belt, he'd be hard pressed not to). This was, however, considered by some to be the greatest film ever made prior to Citizen Kane's release in 1941. I think this is due, in large part, to the title character and the portrayal of her by Marlene Dietrich. Dietrich exudes such a sexual radiance throughout the picture, but she manages to cling to her motherly attentiveness at the same time. Throughout most of the film, it is as if she's playing two different characters at once.

I think the plot, at times, is somewhat silly...but the acting and direction make up for it. von Sternberg's direction is great, and his chemistry with Dietrich is evident in this, their fifth picture together. The musical score is wonderful. All in all, it's a very solid character study that is made memorable by one of Marlene Dietrich's best performances.

JP's Rating: 8.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.1/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Miss Sadie Thompson (1953):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6302281814.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: A military outpost in Samoa is home to a squad of Marines. One day, Miss Sadie Thompson is passing through when a ship quarantine leaves her stranded on the island. The Marines go crazy for the most beautiful woman they've laid eyes upon in a long while. The self-righteous head of the local mission, Mr. Davidson, suspects Sadie of being a fugitive from the bust of a brothel in Hawaii. While Sadie catches the eye of one particular Marine named Sgt. O'Hara, Mr. Davidson does everything in his power to have Sadie removed from the island.

Comments: This 3-D film is a pretty good character study, but it falls short in many areas. For all she offered, the gorgeous Rita Hayworth just wasn't exactly the best actress of her time. She plays the role well, but it's nothing breathtaking. None of the other characters add much to the film, either. I'm not certain whether it's their lack of acting prowess, or whether it's the script they were given to work with. Not to say that the script is horrible, but it's just rather...average. As for the direction and the cinematography, I'm not quite sure how to comment on those things as I'm new to 3-D films. However, I will say that I was impressed with the small things that director Curtis Bernhardt threw into the picture that magnified the film's 3-D presentation (such as Charles Bronson's character coming through the water and spitting out a stream of water). It just seems that he focused more on the smaller things than on the big picture.

None of this is to say that Miss Sadie Thompson isn't a good film. It was quite entertaining, and not just because it was shown in 3-D...I feel it could stand on it's own with any presentation. The 3-D presentation certainly didn't hurt matters, though...in fact, it added a point or so to my final rating. It's quite simply the most awe-inspiring cinematography that I've seen. It was my first 3-D experience, at least that I can recall, and I have no doubt that those who said it's the best 3-D film of all-time were justified in saying so. The tropical backgrounds, the small things on screen were all just...wow. Beautiful, beautiful presentation. It's a shame the content couldn't live up to it.

Awards & Nominations:
1954 Academy Award Nomination - Best Original Song

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 5.9/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Phantom of the Opera (2004):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JMZS.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Deformed since birth, a bitter man known as the Phantom lives in the sewers beneath the Paris Opera House. He falls in love with Christine, an under-appreciated chorus singer. He tutors her privately while terrorizing everybody else involved with the opera house, demanding that she be given lead roles. Meanwhile, a romance forms between the Phantom's love, Christine, and Raoul. Outraged, the Phantom plans to kidnap Christine and hold her captive in his lair...and only Raoul can stop him.

Comments: Well, there's no doubt that Andrew Lloyd Webber has created a classic and timeless musical with of this tale. As such, one would expect a cinematic adaptation to be as classic and timeless. Sadly, this isn't the case. In my opinion, this film is nothing more than the musical with a cheaper ticket price. Joel Schumacher did nothing more than film the stage play of the same name. When it opens on Christmas day, this will go down as the most disappointing film of the year.

The film's lone bright spot is the performance by the lead female, Emmy Rossum. She is brilliant in her role as Christine. Sadly, that is the one of the only positive things I have to say about the film. I realize that it's a musical...but musicals typically have at least a touch of non-melodious dialogue. This film had only, perhaps, a good paragraph and a half of dialogue. The rest was music taken verbatim from the stage play. It seems that Joel Schumacher thought, "hm, this is a good play...so if we just film the play, we can't go wrong." Well, people don't want to see the play on screen. They want to see a cinematic adaptation of the play.

The music is good, but I feel the male leads are miscast and don't do the score any justice. Gerard Butler is good from a distance, but his over-the-top style of acting becomes blatantly obvious in the close-ups. That, paired with his voice (good, but not right for the part, and not loyal to the musical) make him the worst possible choice for the role of the Phantom. To put this into perspective...this was (at the time) the biggest premier to have been screened at the festival I was attending, and the audience was laughing out loud during many of the most "passionate" moments of the film.

Personally, I think most of the music, segregated from the film and the acting, is well above average. I think the sets and costumes are extravagant, wonderful, and quite beautiful. There is no denying how spectacular the story is. When it's all rolled into this one film, though, it just seems to be a bit too much. I don't like my films to be completely free of non-melodious dialogue, I don't like overacting, and I don't like a blaring organ telling me when I'm supposed to feel emotion. While musicals aren't my cup of tea in the first place, even I can see that this film had such potential. It's a shame it came nowhere close to living up to it.

Awards & Nominations:
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Picture, Musical or Comedy
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Original Song
2005 Golden Globe Nomination - Best Actress, Musical or Comedy (Rossum)

JP's Rating: 5.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 6.4/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

The Mutations (1973):

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/1817/mutations/mut-pos.jpg

Plot: Dr. Thompson is a professor at a British university. An evil scientist of sorts, Thompson is trying to create a race of human-plant hybrids...with hopes that they'll be as intelligent as the average person, and self-sustaining like some plants. He believes that he's gotten the necessary formula down, but he now needs to test that formula. So, with the help of some freaks from a local sideshow, he kidnaps unwilling participants for his experiments. If things go wrong, well...at least the sideshow will have some new attractions.

Comments: I don't think there's any doubt in the mind of audiences that this is a B-movie. The acting is sub par, as are the special effects and the plot. One thing that I'm not certain of is whether the film's creators know that it's a B-movie. The film was made on a $400,000 budget and released in 1973, but it has the feel of a 50's horror film. The downfall of the film is that it lacks the fun that was blatantly inserted into those 50's films, and it lacks the camp-humor that more modern horror films cling to. In short, it takes itself too seriously to be much fun for the viewer. B-movies are great. B-movies that take themselves seriously are not.

Even after a Q&A session with the film's producer, Robert Weinbach, I'm still uncertain as to what light the creators view this film in. Weinbach had some entertaining stories of times spent with the film's oddball cast, such as a story he told of walking the streets of London with Willie "Popeye" Ingram. Willie Ingram has the unique ability of being able to pop his eyes out of his skull. According to Weinbach, as they walked the streets of London getting stoned, Popeye would use this skill on beautiful, unsuspecting women. Most, he said, fainted at the sight.

However, when Weinbach referenced his film, it was with the utmost seriousness. He sat near me during the screening, and I kept an eye on him. He seemed to have a hint of a grin on his face during the film's opening scenes, the grin of a proud man, not that of a B-movie fan viewing a blatantly bad film. The special effects aren't that special, the acting isn't really acting, and the story is rather corny. Mr. Weinbach seemed like a nice man, and it was kind of him to take time out of his schedule to spend some time with us. I just hope, for his sake, that he sees this film as what it is: a really bad movie that people enjoy for that very reason. If you view this film with the realization that this is a B-movie, you'll like it.

JP's Rating: 5.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 4.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Toys Are Not For Children (1972):

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007ELDS.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Plot: Jamie Godard's mother, Edna, kicked her father out of the house when she was still a young girl. Jamie got a job at a toy store, where she met the man she would eventually marry, Charlie. Once married, it became evident to Charlie that things were not right with Jamie. The 20-year old girl still slept with a stuffed toy from her youth, and she had the sexual prowess of a small child. When Jamie meets a woman from "the city," things take a turn.

Comments: This is probably the single most fucked up film I've ever seen. Those of you who have seen Julien Donkey-Boy, Irreversible, Salo, Gummo, and the rest of those "off-tilt" films have no clue. After the film was screened, our host came up and apologized to all of the parents and children in the audience. This is the kind of film that makes you laugh at how royally fucked up a film you were just subjected to.

Let me draw you a picture...the film starts off with a nude girl laying on a bed, caressing a stuffed toy soldier, and moaning "Daddy, ohh daddy yes, I love you daddy." It ends with, well...with a scene that I will never get out of my mind. The acting, the direction...none of that matters. This film could feature the best performances in the history of man. It would still be referred to with the phrase "wait, do you mean that one super fucked up film?"

I really don't know what more to write. I think everybody should see this movie, simply so I have people to wallow in it's fucked-uppedness with. I won't bother to comment on the acting and whatnot, since if you see this film, none of that matters to you. All you need to know is that this is exploitation cinema to the max, and it's a wonder that a film with this script was ever allowed to be made.

JP's Rating: 6.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 4.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Layer Cake (2004):

http://images.ciao.com/iuk/images/products/normal/924/product-5766924.jpg

Plot: This film tells the tale of a successful cocaine dealer, respected among England's most elite criminals. However, despite all of his success, he's got plans for an early retirement. Before that comes to be, crime-boss Jimmy Price hands down a tough assignment: find Charlotte, the daughter of one of Jimmy's old friends. Then there are the 2,000,000 pounds worth of ecstasy, the neo-Nazi's, and the men who have been left betrayed. One final job, one beautiful love interest, and one serious drug-ring stand between him and a peaceful retirement.

Comments: This is one hell of a film. I'm not too sure when it will be released to the rest of you, but I hope it's soon, because if you're a fan of cinema (and you must be if you're still reading this thread after a hundred reviews and change) you deserve the opportunity to watch "Layer Cake." Did you see Snatch? How about Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels? If you saw either of these two Guy Ritchie films, odds are you loved them, and saw the other (if not, do so). If you enjoyed either, or both of those films, you must go out and see this film as soon as possible.

The film's directed by Matthew Vaughn, the producer on Ritchie's first three films. In his stylish debut, Vaughn delivers a hell of a punch, a film that surpasses everything Ritchie, his directorial protege, has ever been involved with. The acting is top notch. The best performance of the picture is turned in by Daniel Craig as our nameless protagonist. The supporting cast keeps up well, though.

I think the best aspect of this film is it's direction. From the opening scene, I knew that I was in for a hell of a ride. I think Matthew Vaughn will become one of the next "in-people" in the cinematic world. With the likes of Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, and Kevin Smith becoming as grounded in cinema as Spielburg, and Kubrick before him, and Hitchcock before him...fans of cinema have been looking for a new, hip directorial star for a while now. I believe that Vaughn, along with Alejandro Gonzales Inaritu and a handful of others, will be the guy to step up and fill that void.

This is one damn fine, highly entertaining film. See it whenever you get the chance.

Awards & Nominations:
2004 British Independent Film Nomination - Douglas Hickox Award

JP's Rating: 9.0/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.1/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Ong-bak (2003):

http://www.ethaicd.com/m_ongbak.jpg

Plot: Booting lives in a rural Thai town. When the head of the sacred Buddah statue Ong-bak is stolen, it becomes Ting's task to go to Bangkok and recover it from Don, the gangster behind it's disappearance. Extremely athletic, and thoroughly trained in the ancient art of Muay Thai, Booting is adequately equipped to recover the priceless stone head. However, he has to find it first, and that means going through and around a number of henchmen.

Comments: Wow. Even now, over 24 hours after seeing this film, that is the only word I can come up with for this movie. Wow. This is, perhaps, the best action movie I've seen in my lifetime. It is hands down the best martial arts film I've ever seen. I know it seems exaggerated, but I believe that the young star of this film, Tony Jaa, will someday be as revered as Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Stephen Chow and company, and I honestly believe that he's got what it takes to surpass the great Bruce Lee. He is nothing short of amazing. Tony Jaa. Tony Jaa. Say it again. Tony Jaa. Don't forget that name...so that in 5 years, you can say, "oh, yeah, that guy? I've been a fan for a while now. Welcome to the bandwagon."

I really don't think I can go on about this film enough. On the other hand, words cannot do it justice. This is far from a typical martial arts movie. In fact, the only thing typical about it is it's story. I'll go ahead and get all of the negative stuff out there. You've got a typical storyline. There's the acting, which is great at times, and at other times seems rather mediocre. The direction is good, but nothing we've never seen before. The action, though. The martial arts. It is...wow. I'm going to talk this film up like it's the second-coming of Christ, and you'll still see it and think, "damn, he couldn't write anything any better than that for this film?" See it as soon as it's released to the United States. Promise me that, and I'll do something I haven't done before and include a link to the film's trailer:

http://www.ongbakmovie.com/pages/comingsoo...trailer_lg.html (http://www.ongbakmovie.com/pages/comingsoon/trailer_lg.html)

Know that this trailer is but a taste of what you get in the movie. An appetizer for a full, 5-course feast of serious ass-kicking action...all of which (including what you see in the trailer) is done with no wires or special effects. This film was so amazing that I found myself rolling my eyes through a Stephen Chow film that has only seen the light of day once (at the Toronto film festival). How many martial arts films are there that overshadows the world premier of a Stephen Chow movie? Only one, that I can think of.

I'll part with a quip from a review written by somebody that was in the audience with me. I think this sums up perfectly just what this film has to offer: "I told my brother once that no one could possibly do the move in Street Fighter when you hit a-b-a-b Up down left. Ong Bak, you proved me wrong."

See this film now. Thank me later.

JP's Rating: 10/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.0/10

[NatrlBornThrllr]

Kung Fu Hustle (2004):

http://www.stardaily.com.cn/Upfiles2004/2004-12-1-23-2-29-33-2.jpg

Plot: Set in 1940's China, the story revolves around a citizen who wants nothing more than to be a member of the revered Axe Gang. Other characters include a loud-mouthed landlady, her pushover husband, the head of the Axe Gang, and a local tailor...all who are quite powerful in their own rights, and will do whatever necessary to defend their territory.

Comments: This film is a mixed bag, that's for sure. I suppose the trailer says as much, with the great Stephen Chow holding a gleaming axe in one hand, a colorful lollypop in the other. And so you have the film...part over-the-top comedy, part astonishingly choreographed martial-arts scenes. There is melodrama, outlandish comedy, exciting action...the works. It's hard to take the action and drama seriously, though, with the overblown role the comedy plays.

I'll be blunt...the film just didn't do it for me. There are some absolutely hilarious scenes, including the spoofs of some well-known films (such as The Shining, to name one). There were some awesome action scenes, though most were cloaked in a sense of comedy. The story was mediocre, nothing at all original. The acting, again, was good but so overblown that it seemed anybody could have played the parts.

I'm not able to pin down what it is about the film that I didn't enjoy...but I just didn't really take a liking to it. Perhaps it was the fact that I'd been in a theater for 22 hours by that point. Perhaps it was that I was expecting a high-caliber domestic film instead of this. Perhaps it's that it followed the best martial arts film I've ever seen, Ong-bak. Whatever the reason, it simply didn't do it for me. I never saw Shaolin Soccer, but I'm certain that if you enjoyed it, you'll like this. Me? Just not my type of movie, is all. Other seemed to really take a liking to it. You'll have to see it to find out where you fall in the mix.

JP's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB.com Rating: 7.4/10