Thursday, February 25, 2010

Like Jennifer Connelly, it's in my contract to cry in every movie.

I’m not a big horror fan and I don’t intend on seeing The Crazies although Timothy Olyphant (Scream 2, Go, Live Free or Die Hard) is a good actor who is very diverse. Maybe I would consider seeing it if they casted another actress to play his wife. Now you probably don’t know who she is but her name is Radha Mitchell (above) and she was in Man on Fire. For some reason I can’t stand the woman. I feel like she’s going to give the same one dimensional performance as in Man on Fire. Always crying and pleading for some bullshit reason or another. Also there’s something about her face and the way she speaks that I just don’t like. Frankly, I would like to hire a female wrestler and watch her toss Mitchell around the ring. I don’t know that’s just me. By the way, every time I see one of her movies I have the same reaction as in the picture above.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Help Me!

Hi, I'm Cuba Gooding Jr. I've lost the ability to pick good movies. Can you help me re-establish my career and sanity? If you disagree, here are some of my recent movies:

Wrong Turn at Tahoe (2009)
Hardwired (2009)
Lies & Illusions (2009)
The Devil's Tomb (2009)
The Way of War (2009)
Linewatch (2008)
Harold (2008)
Hero Wanted (2008)
The Ungodly (2007)
What Love Is (2007)
End Game (2006)

As for the train wreck picture up above...well let's not talk about it. If you know anything about the listed movies then good for you! I sure as shit don't because I was drunk when I picked and filmed them. Move over Eddie Murphy and Jean-Claude Van Damme there's a new disaster on the block!

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Shutter Island

Summary: Federal Marshalls Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) investigate the mysterious disappearance of a female patient at Shutter Island, a mental asylum in New England. During their stay the Marshalls discover things are not what they seem especially in Daniels opinion. Daniels is hell bent on uncovering the truth about the inner workings of the asylum and its faculty.
Plot (B): When I first saw the preview a few months ago I had no interest in seeing it. However, after walking out of the theater I am happy with what I saw. The plotline is interesting but there are several back stories and names that can confuse viewers- so pay attention. At some point in the middle of the movie I asked myself “Where is this going?” “Is this another fucking dream sequence? I didn’t know I was watching The Soprano’s.” There was a sense of repetitiveness that started to frustrate me; however that changed during the movie’s climax. I have to say I really liked the pay-off and it was worth the wait. Shutter Island is a movie worth seeing, but you may have to see it twice because you’ll probably miss certain things.
Action (N/A): What little action there is doesn’t merit a grade. I’m not trashing this part of the film it’s not that type of movie. This is a film where the action takes place on a mental level rather than the physical.
Acting & Dialogue (B+): As always DiCaprio delivers a stellar performance. His character is serious, highly intelligent, but also troubled, haunted, and short fused making him a person not to fuck with. As the movie progresses DiCaprio’s intensity increases thus adding more suspense. Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, and Mark Ruffalo provide strong supporting roles as well. Seeing four such talented actors work together is definitely a treat. Michelle Williams and Jackie Earle Haley who have small but important roles are also effective assets to the Scorsese arsenal.
Sex Appeal (6-7): For all you Leo fanatics out there don’t get too excited Shutter Island isn’t going to deliver in that department. There are no shirtless scenes or intimate close ups, which would make you all excited. However, his character does deal with so much emotional pain from past events causing viewers to sympathize and pity him thus turning him into the sexy tortured soul.
Director (B+): This is Martin Scorsese’s first major film since 2006’s The Departed and I have to say he did a damn good job. Is it better than The Departed? No fucking way. However, you will leave the theater happy. This is Scorsese’s and DiCaprio’s fourth film together and I’m more than willing to go see another ten films they do together. DiCaprio is Scorsese’s new DeNiro, which isn’t new news. Scorsese brings out the very best in DiCaprio. They are very familiar with each other’s styles and if they continue down this path you can expect great things. What I really liked was the dark Jaws- like theme music that resonated throughout the film. It set the tone and direction of story. Scorsese always does an excellent job pairing the story with music.
Overall: B/B+

Friday, February 19, 2010

The Time Traveler's Wife

Another garbage movie I didn’t waste my time seeing. But let’s look at the premise of the film. A guy drifts in and out of a girl’s life via time travel then ends up marrying her. While at first it sounds ridiculous I think any guy would love to have that ability. You know, just fade away mid-fight or right after sex so you can skip the cuddling. Or how about if you knock up a girl and don’t want the responsibility. The words that will ring in her ears forever as you fade away would most likely be, “Peace, you’re problem now! By the way you now have the clap, sorry!”

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Inglourious Basterds

Summary: A secret American army squad of Jewish soldiers, known as the Basterds, are dropped into Nazi occupied France to do one thing…kill Nazi’s in retribution for the ongoing Holocaust. The team is led by Lt. Aldo “the Apache” Raine (the only non-Jewish solider played by Brad Pitt). The film does not center entirely on the Basterds, it also depicts the effects they have on the Germans. There is also another sub-story that indirectly relates to the main plotline but you need to watch to find out.

Plot (A): After I saw this movie for first time I was blown away. When I watched it for a second time the other night I had the same reaction. When one watches a Quentin Tarantino movie you are sucked into his world where rules cease to exist. This isn’t your typical war movie. The story is gruesome and extreme, but entertaining, authentic, and different at the same time.

Action (A): One thing I love about a Tarantino movie is the action. You’re never going to get the typical action sequence like you would with other movies. He is extremely creative with the way he depicts action and death. For example, Lt. Raine demands 100 Nazi scalps from EACH of his soldiers and boy do they deliver. To be honest that’s the tip of the iceberg…there’s so much more. If you have a weak stomach and don’t like blood then this isn’t the movie for you.

Acting & Dialogue (A): As with every other Tarantino film, the story is heavily dominated by dialogue. Not just good dialogue but great dialogue. Tarantino specifically wrote the role of Lt. Raine for Brad Pitt and did not have anyone else in mind. Pitt did a superb job in this film unlike he did in Troy (Hey Brad can I have my $10 back. No, better yet. Take that money and go buy a Gillette razor and shave that pubic looking goatee off). As good as Pitt was, it is Christoph Waltz who is the shining star of this film. Waltz plays SS Officer Lans Handa. He steals every scene he is in. Waltz gives the film an added jolt of energy with his command of four different languages. His character is deceiving and evil but extremely respectful, charming, and cunning. Waltz will most likely win for Best Supporting Actor next month.

Sex Appeal (N/A): These soldiers don’t have the time to tap some local French ass. They’re too busy killing, scalping, and enjoying the fun of that.

Director (A): I can honestly say I’ve never seen a bad Tarantino movie. He has securely created a niche for himself in the land of cinema. Like his other films, Inglourious Basterds has several layers forcing viewers to come back and reexamine everything. In my opinion, he is a brilliant director and writer (he wrote Basterds) who revolutionized the cinema industry dating back to 1992 with Reservoir Dogs. Although he probably won’t win for Best Director this year, his time has arrived and he should be formally rewarded.

Overall: A

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Taking of Pelham 123

Summary: A crazed man by the name of Ryder (John Travolta) hi-jacks a subway in New York City along with his cronies demanding money for the hostages. Caught in the middle of Ryder’s web is Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) a MTA worker who oversees the subways and now must deal with a lunatic.

Plot (B-): This film is a remake of the 1974 original starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, therefore the plot is pretty much the same. There were some suspenseful moments but I wasn’t on the edge of my seat. I’m sure this movie had more of an impact when it was originally released because the shock/suspense factor was not as high then as it is today. In today’s world it takes more to shock the average Two Girls One Cup for example. I only saw the first 10 seconds. I practically cried, almost puked (no joke), and I haven’t been the same since.

Action (C): This movie is not about action or death even though it occurs. It’s about the tension that is created by Ryder and what will happen if his demands aren’t met.

Acting & Dialogue (B+): Travolta makes one hell of a bad guy and I’m happy to see him back in that saddle. His eyes are full of fire and he exudes a “don’t fuck with me” attitude. While Travolta plays the energetic bad guy, Washington is calm, cool, and collected creating an even balance to their relationship. What I really liked was the way the two actors were able to create realistic dialogue/relationship via CB radio. James Gandolfini and John Turturro are also in the movie adding even more New York City authenticity to the story. (Side note all four of these actors were born in New York and New Jersey.)

Sex Appeal (N/A): Settle down ladies there’s no need to wet your panties. This isn’t that type of movie.

Director (B): Tony Scott, brother of Ridley Scott (Gladiator), created a worthy remake. Like I said in my Wolfman blog it’s not easy to remake a movie, although that seems to be the trend in Hollywood these days. Scott’s resume is very strong stretching back to the 1980’s. This is his fourth film with Denzel Washington and looking back on their history I can see why they keep working together. Actually, if you look on IMDB you’ll find several actors he’s worked with more than once, which says something about Scott’s abilities and talent.

Overall: B-

Monday, February 15, 2010

Less Than Zero

Summary: Robert Downey Jr., Andrew McCarthy, and Jami Gertz are three friends living in Los Angles. McCarthy leaves for New York City to attend college while Downey and Getz stay behind. When McCarthy returns for Christmas he finds they are both nose deep into drugs, living a crazy life style, and several other problems centered on Downey. This movie will bring you back to the 1980’s with the hair, clothes, and music which is always a nice trip down memory lane.
Plot (B+): Drug movies always provide interesting plotlines. This is the case with Less Than Zero. Like any other drug movie, Less Than Zero shows the viewer the disastrous affects drugs have on people and their relationships with others. This movie was based on the novel written by Bret Easton Elis, who also wrote, American Psycho and The Rules of Attraction. (On a side note those two movies are just as good if not better than Less Than Zero.) His books always depict the deterioration of the main character(s) and how that affects everyone else.
Action (N/A): This isn’t a movie about fighting or action. The only fighting that does occur is between McCarthy and James Spader’s muscle man named Hop. Yes, he is name is Hop and its utterly ridiculous. I wanted to laugh and cry at the same time when I heard it.
Set Design (B+): I’m giving this a B+ because of the originality in the party scenes. Some of the set designs are so over the top and 80’s you have to admire it. Take a look for yourself and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
Acting & Dialogue (A): Each of the four main actors shine, but it is Robert Downey Jr. who leaves an everlasting mark. He is so damn good in this movie it’s scary. What’s scarier is that he lived that drugged infested lifestyle for so long. It's bizarre how this film foreshadowed things to come in his personal life. Surprisingly, McCarthy stands out as well. You can really sense his inner conflict when dealing with his friends, which brings a strong balance to the story.
Sex Appeal (6): There are no titty shots in this movie, which is always a downer in my book. However, Jamie Gertz shows some serious cleavage that may get some blood pumping to a certain area if you don’t “get some” on a regular basis. Oh, there’s also a random ass shot of McCarthy waking up in the beginning of the movie. Typically, this wouldn’t be out of the ordinary, but he’s living in New York City and its winter. What fucking guy just wears a thermal shirt to bed and no pants or boxers during the winter? That straight up pissed me off. I like continuity people! (By the way I gave this a 6 only because of the cleavage shots and not the random ass shot...that lost points.)
Director (B+): Marek Kanievska is a relatively unknown director in America. He directed two other films since Less Than Zero, one in 2000 and the other in 2004, but they were of no significance. With that being said he did a very good job. If he had anything to do with picking the great Rick Rubin for the music then I give him even more credit.
Overall: B+

Friday, February 12, 2010

The Wolfman

Summary: In late 19th century London, Lawrence Talbot (Bencio Del Toro), the prodigal son of Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), is summoned home due to the violent murder of his brother by a mysterious beast. While investigating, Del Toro is bitten by the creature, thus changing his world forever.

Plot (B): This plot line is practically the same in comparison to the original 1941 version. This is always pleasant to see with any remake since so many things can go wrong. With that said, the beginning was a little slow to start and I yearned for more captivating dialogue in between action scenes. Don’t get me
wrong the story is interesting but I expected a little bit more.

Action (A): He rips. He bites. He slashes his victims leaving them disemboweled and decapitated! The action will not leave you wanting more. You will be fully satisfied.

Acting & Dialogue (B-): Even though Del Toro and Hopkins are both Oscar winners I wanted something more from them. They somewhat created a unenergetic aura when the Wolfman wasn’t present. Perhaps those are just the characters, reserved but self-tortured. However, each time Del Toro turns into the Wolfman he does an excellent job resuscitating the story and its momentum. It is not easy to mimic the behavior of an animal, especially when you take your job as serious as Del Toro and try to lick and smell your own balls in order to fully get into character.

Sex Appeal (6): I’m giving this a 6 because there was a great side boob shot of Emily Blunt. Let’s be honest who doesn’t like some good side boob? I do. Unless it’s followed by some full frontal boobs, which will make me forget about the side boob. Wooooooooooo!

Make-up (A+): Rick Baker is an amazing make-up artist and is the Beethoven or Mozart of his field. Baker’s resume is chalk full of great creations. For example, he did the make-up for An American Werewolf in London (which is so damn good), the “Thriller” video, Star Wars, Coming to America, Hellboy, and so much more. On average it took him four hours to put Del Toro in full make-up each time. Great work Rick!

Director (B): Joe Johnston, whose films include: Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, Jumanjii, Jurassic Park III, and the up-coming The First Avenger: Captain America, created a worthy remake of the famous horror classic. When working with such talent as Del Toro, Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving I guess you have to check your balls at the door because they’re in charge, especially when Del Toro is the producer.

Overall: B

Thursday, February 11, 2010

District 9

Summary: An alien spaceship has settled over the city of Johannesburg, South Africa and has been there for a number of years. The aliens have run amuck through the city and therefore are sectioned off in their own district. The story focuses on Sharlto Copley’s character, a government agent, and his encounters with the aliens.

Plot (A): This movie is awesome and pretty damn funny. The plot is like nothing I’ve seen before and I couldn’t take my eyes away from the screen. Some parts of the story are shot documentary style, which was intriguing and foreshadowed what was to come. Initially the film was not intended for the US market but thanks to Peter Jackson (director of Lord of the Rings) who recognized the talent of Copley and the genius of director Neil Blomkamp he brought it to the US. This is the best Sci-Fi movie of 2009. Star Trek and Terminator: Salvation were both very good, but District 9 takes the cake.

Action (A-): The action scenes are lively, exciting, and add flavor to the well written story. Although, I gave this section an A- for its originality the film is not all that action packed. However, the action is very bloody so don’t watch it after eating if you’re squeamish.

Acting & Dialogue (A): This is where the movie really soars. Copley is funny and witty. As the movie progresses, you will come to appreciate Copley’s talent and his ability to draw you further into the story. I wouldn’t be surprised if Copley ad-libbed some of his lines because parts of it sound so spur of the moment.

Sex Appeal: N/A

Director (A): Neil Blomkamp (sounds like blumpkin if you say it quickly a few times) did an excellent job. As I said before, this is the best Sci-Fi movie of 2009. Although it didn’t have Avatar-like box office success it has been nominated in the Best Picture category. I completely agree with this nomination and Blomkamp deserves most of the credit.

Overall: A

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

10 Romantic Movie Options to Watch for Valentine’s Day

1. Don Juan DeMarco (1994) - To be honest you can’t go wrong with this movie. Romance seeps out of the screen and into your T.V room. What makes this movie even better is watching a young and truly talented Johnny Depp work with the great Marlon Brando. Their styles complement each other allowing the viewer to indulge and fully appreciate the story.
2. Moonstruck (1987) – Another personal favorite of mine because it combines comedy, Italian food, and romance. I saw this movie when I was very young (thanks to my parents) and it has always stuck with me. The intensity that Nicholas Cage brings to his character is at the same time humourous and capitivating. Cher’s groundbreaking performance is unforgettable.
3. Chocolat (2000) – Another solid romantic film for those who love Johnny Depp. Although he is not the main actor he does play the love interest of Juliette Binoche. What’s some charming about this film is air of magic in the idea that a simple chocolate can ignite passion and life in a lifeless town and its people.
4. The Notebook (2004) - Yes, this movie screams chick flick but the message it sends is moving and true. Being in love is a difficult endeavor because there are so many ups and downs. However, it’s the loyalty and dedication the main characters give to each other, which correctly depict what true love is. Like I said before, being in love is no easy thing and if you really care for someone you’ll go to whatever lengths for them.
5. 9 ½ Weeks (1986): This sexually charged movie stars Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger both in the prime of their youth. This movie is so hot and lustful you are bound to have sex during and/or after the movie. To get a clear picture of this film allow me to quote the beginning of the Nine Inch Nails song “Closer”, “You let me violate you. You let me desecrate you. You let me penetrate you. You let me complicate you.” Enough said!
6. Ladyhawke (1985) – Guys, this is a good movie for you because it incorporates medieval sword fights (which is just up my alley) as well as romance for the ladies. It stars Rutger Hauer, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Matthew Broderick. This movie shows that overwhelming, and even otherworldly adversity, cannot break true love.
7. The Princess Bride (1987) - A great classic that everyone loves including myself. One thing I never understood was that Westley always said, “As you wish.” to Buttercup. Let’s see him say that if she said she wanted to put something up his ass during a fight. Apart from this love story the other characters bring so much flavor and fun to the film. "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father! Prepare to die!"
8. True Romance (1993) – An amazing movie written by Quentin Tarantino (guys this is another movie you’ll love) with an ALL-STAR cast including Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Brad Pitt, Gary Oldman, Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken and the list continues on and on. This movie depicts the extreme and volatile lengths a loving couple will go to in order to protect each other.
9. Last Tango in Paris (1972) – Another sexually driven film. This one stars Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider that takes place in…you guessed it…PARIS. A Parisian woman and an American man enjoy a relationship that is solely based on physical passion and pleasure, which isn’t anything new in today’s age. I will be honest with you I haven’t seen this movie, but I heard good things and it’s like a porno so it can’t be all that bad.
10. Jerry McGuire (1996) –I love this movie because this is one of Tom Cruise’s best performances and you really see the depth of his skill. Also, Renee Zellweger’s dedication to a man, who is doing everything he can in order to make it, is sincere. (The fact that she isn’t the size of stick is nice too). What I really like about this film is the message. You can have everything or nothing in life but it’s the love and support of another that makes the hard times easier and the good times sweeter.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Dear John

Okay, lets get one thing straight. I DID NOT see this movie! There is simply some shit you just don't see. I just want to comment on it. If you have seen the trailers on T.V. the girl says, "It only took two weeks for me to fall in love with you." C'mon give me a break. Let me give you the real guy response, "It took only two weeks for you to fall in love with me, but only one night and four shots of tequila to get in your pants. Thanks for the memories. Call you when I get back from Iraq."

Friday, February 5, 2010


Summary: This vampire movie is different from the ones that have preceded it. In this storyline, vampires are now the majority of the world’s population and humans are the minority…in fact they are extinct. Since human blood serves as the vampires main source of food the vampire community is searching for a blood substitute. If these guys only had True Blood their problems would be solved.

Plot (B): Intriguing and original story line ad mist the whole vampire craze in the U.S. There is no sappy love story. These vampires don’t glitter in the sun like they do in the Twlight Saga (which is blasphemy in regards to vampire mythology.) They simply burn and die.

Action (B-): There is nothing truly special about the action in Daybreakers. If you have seen one vampire eat someone then you have seen them all. What’s interesting to see is when the starving vampires come across human blood they succumb to their animal side in order to feed their hunger.

Acting & Dialogue (B): Good dialogue that keeps the viewer interested in the movie. This is unlike Public Enemies where I prayed something interesting would happen. Pay attention to the newspaper headlines in opening credits, which somewhat explain how everyone is a vampire.

Sex Appeal (N/A): Unless you’re the type of person that likes frail, almost bloodless, and saggy bodies don’t expect much. However, if you’re the Jeffrey Dahmer type you’ll definitely get off on the cannibalism.

Director (B): Directed (and written) by the Spierig Brothers, Michael and Peter. This is their third film together. I’ll be honest I never heard of them or their first two movies, Undead (2003) and The Big Picture (2000), but then again those were my college years and I was too busy being intoxicated therefore could have cared less. However, for their third film it was good. Of all their movies this had a solid cast: Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, and Willem Defoe. Obviously they saw something in the script and were able to translate it to the screen.

Overall: B

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

2010 Oscar Nominations

The 2010 Oscar nominations came out yesterday. I'm pretty content with the nominees and at the same time not surprised. Out of all the nomination categories "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker" rightfully led the pack. Both were nominated for Best Picture and Best Director among other things. This a coin toss and could go either way but I'm pulling for Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker". Bigelow is the fourth woman ever to be nominated for the Best Director category and may be the first one to win. Both of these films are very good, but there's more of an emotional journey with "The Hurt Locker". Yes, James Cameron's "Avatar" is a revolutionary movie with all the CGI, but at the same time I don't think the story is completely original. Like I said before, if you saw "Dances with Wolves" and/or "Pocahontas" it's the same concept. It’s in the hands of the Academy now. However, don’t be surprised if they pull a fast one. They love to screw over deserving people for their precious favorites. i.e Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull (1980) losing to Robert Redford’s Ordinary People and Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler losing to Sean Penn in Milk (This one is still burning me up from last year! MICKEY WAS BRILLANT! Then again it goes to show the predictability of the Academy. If a person plays a gay or a mentally handicapped character they’re at least getting an Oscar nomination, if not the award.)

This year’s Best Picture category is very different from previous years. Instead of traditionally nominating five movies the Academy nominated ten. If you look at the caliber of movies this year it does make sense, but also will leave a lot of broken hearts. The other movies nominated were Up in the Air (very good, Jason Reitman was nominated for Best Director), Up (animated Disney movie that has no business being there), Inglorious Basterds (great movie, Tarantino was nominated for Best Director), An Education, Precious (Lee Daniel was nominated for Best Director), District 9 (very good and totally not expected), The Blind Side, and A Serious Man.

If you want to know the Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress nominees look below. As for the rest of those bullshit categories go to some other website.

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actor

Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones (more like the lovely piece of shit movie)
Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds (who probably will and hopefully win because he’s amazing in that film)

Best Actress

Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side (Yea, the chick who did Speed 2: Cruise Control)
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe¸ Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

Best Supporting Actress

Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Anna Kedrick, Up in the Air
Mo’ (I don’t shave my legs) Nique*, Precious

*That is no joke. Mo’Nique does not shave her legs. I saw a picture of her in People…Google it. Hopefully she’ll shave them. The last thing she needs is to trip on that forest she has growing while walking up to the podium if she wins.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Sherlock Holmes

Summary: Sherlock Holmes, along with his partner Dr. John Watson, must battle the evil and newly resurrected from the dead Lord Blackwood. A war of brains and muscle is waged in order to save London from ultimate destruction.

Story (B+): Well written and interesting. It doesn’t take an idiot to follow the story but don’t think you can text and watch at the same time.

Action (B+): Very good fight scenes. Holmes is a calculating fighter as he is a detective. He quickly observes his opponents weaknesses and abuses them like a 5th grader picking on a 3rd grader.

Acting & Dialogue (A): The film has strong dialogue that keeps the story moving. Downey has a solid English accent. Speaking in an English accent is no easy feat. If you think I’m wrong watch American born actress Maria Bello in The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. She replaced Rachel Weiz’s character. I dare you to sit through it entirely and not want cut your ears off…I DARE YOU!

Set Design (A-): Very authentic. It does look like 19th Century London. This is refreshing since we live in the age of CGI and in many cases it can take away from a movie. If you don’t know what I’m talking about watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. You’ll be disgusted, especially if you a true Indiana Jones fan.

Sex Appeal (5): The movie is not really about T & A or love. There is a romantic relationship between Downey and Rachael McAdams’ character but it doesn’t dominate the story.

Director (A): Guy Ritchie’s direction of the cast was great, especially, the casting of Mark Strong as the villain (he’s great in Body of Lies). I was very happy to see that he incorporated his signature touch, the slow motion fight sequence, which is always very cool. Holmes along with his last film, RocknRolla, definitely made up for 2002’s Swept Away remake, where he casted his then wife Madonna. If you can sit through that you deserve a street named after yourself.

Sherlock Holmes: A-

Monday, February 1, 2010


Summary: God has lost faith in mankind and sends his angels to annihilate civilization. He commands the archangel Michael to find and kill a pregnant waitress whose child is mankind’s only savior. Michael disobeys God’s command because he still has faith in humans and sets out to protect her.

Plot (C+): Legion has somewhat of an interesting plot but falls short of delivering. I wanted more than what was given. If the story focused entirely on Michael then it would have been more interesting. However, it goes back and forth between the other cast members who aren’t that interesting and Michael who is.

Action (B-): Legion has the typical gun fights like every other movie. It’s nothing outstanding but at the same time it doesn’t suck. The fight scene between Michael and the archangel Gabriel is cool. What is cool, however, is Michael’s mercilessness. He does anything to protect the girl and her child, which includes gunning down Kate Walsh in cold blood.

Acting/Dialogue (B-): Paul Bettany is a very good actor and he did a good job portraying the great archangel Michael. Dennis Quaid and Kate Walsh (formerly on “Grey’s Anatomy” and currently on “Private Practice”) are also strong co-stars. Even Hollywood’s shittiest actor Tyrese Gibson is not horrible, but then again he doesn’t have that many lines…thank God.

Sex Appeal (N/A): Unless you have a fetish for hot pregnant women (I do and I’m proud of shut-up) don’t expect much.

Director (C+): This is Scott Stewart’s sophomore film and he did a decent job. He’s mainly known for his work in the visual effects area. If you look on IMDB you’ll see that he has an arsenal of movies he’s worked on such as: Blade Runner, Sin City, Superman Returns, and Iron Man. According to IMDB, he did not take any credit on the visual effects in Legion but I’m more than sure he had input.
Overall: C+

The Book of Eli

Summary: In a post-apocalyptic Earth a loner by the name of Eli (that would be Denzel Washington if you’ve been under a rock and haven’t seen the previews) wanders the scorched US heading west. The only thing of true value he owns is his bible….the last bible. Upon his journey, he must protect himself and the Bible from cannibals and psychotic town’s people.

Plot (B/B+): Did you see Waterwold? If you did then The Book of Eli is along the same lines but instead of water everywhere there’s sand. To be honest, the story was original and at points I felt sorry for Eli for what he’s exposed to. However, when/if you see the film then you’ll understand why it has received shitty reviews.

Action (A): I wish there was more action in this movie because it would have really carried this film. Eli is literally fucking people up left and right. In 20 seconds his dismembers a group of at least 10 guys with a machete and then walks out…that shit was ballin’.

Acting & Dialogue (C-/D+): This is where the movie falls flat. Denzel doesn’t have that many lines and you have to pay attention to learn the Earth’s present condition. More than half of the movie you’re watching Eli walk. In the beginning he’s walking by himself in slow motion, then it’s some more of the same shit, this is followed by Eli and Mila Kunis walking together…IN SLOW MOTION! It’s like the Hughes Brothers want to kill you…slowly.

Director (C-): It’s safe to say that the Hughes Brothers did not hit a home-run with Eli. As I said before the story is interesting but the Hughes Bros. should have taken it in a better direction. I will give them a pass on this film because they previously directed Menace II Society, Dead Presidents, and From Hell.

Overall: C-

The Hurt Locker

Summary: This film takes place in Baghdad 2004 and is the story of an Army bomb squad. It mainly centers on Jeremy Renner’s character who is an adrenaline junkie. He recognizes death is everywhere but doesn’t care because diffusing bombs is the only thing he truly loves despite being married and having a son.

Plot (A): If you want an inside look of what US troops deal with day in and day out in this war we are in then watch this movie. You’ll be blown away!

Action (A): Look…this is a military movie. You’re going to get plenty of nail biting, high packed action. By the end of the movie you’ll have more respect for our soldiers and recognize anyone who does that type of job needs a cat scan. I sure as shit will never do it.

Acting & Dialogue (A+): Not only does this movie deliver in action but it is the dialogue and acting that truly takes center stage. You’ll notice that the actors portraying these soldiers not only deal with fighting a war but they deal with personal issues caused by war. Their emotions and thoughts are transparent through their faces and eyes.

Sex Appeal (N/A): C’mon! This is a war movie there is none. If you want to see sexual situations in a war flick go put on Jarhead and watch Jake Gyllenhaal rail his girlfriend up against the wall for 5 seconds then go attempt to jerk-off in a bathroom to her picture.

Director (A): Since its debut Kathryn Bigelow was getting Oscar buzz. She did an excellent job with this film. I mean she directed Point Break need I say more. Her presentation of story is truly amazing and she also did a fine job working with the editor. There is one common theme that relates The Hurt Locker with Point Break and that’s adrenaline. Patrick Swayze’s character was driven by this and wanted to live life on the edge. The same goes for Jeremy Renner’s character. I guess she knows how to depict that trait well. DO NOT be surprised if she wins!

Overall: A


Summary: The people of Earth travel to planet Pandora so they can take advantage of their natural resources….if you know you’re history that should sound familiar. A paraplegic Marine is recruited because his twin brother died and they can use him for the avatar program. Look, instead of me explaining it just see the damn movie…it’s good.

Plot (B+): Avatar has a great plot and it’s very interesting. However, this movie is similar to Dances With Wolves. With that being said it’s still worth seeing.

Action (A): The majority of the movie is CGI obviously, but it still has great action scenes. Most theaters have released it in 3D and 3D IMAX which is great. The culminating action sequence is very good.

Acting & Dialogue (A-): For a movie that is mainly CGI, the acting and dialogue is very good. I wish I could say the same thing for the last three Star Wars…such a shame. Things are spelled out for you clearly and you will leave the theater satisfied.

Sex Appeal (N/A): You’re sick in the head if you get off on watching blue creatures have sex…unless it’s a porn knock off from Vivid, then you’re sane as can be.

Director (A): James Cameron has the Midas touch. In the words of Vince Vaughn in Swingers he’s “Money.” He has continuously created strong storylines combined with great action and a staggering box office numbers. He’s on track to beating Titanic which grossed around 1.8 billion dollars. Nice job James. With all this money coming in hopefully he can get a haircut.

Overall: A