Reviews

I usually give the FC games a 10/10 (except for Primal - sorry, I gave up on that after about 2 hours). This one was seriously ambitious, with beautiful scenery and all the usual crazy violent stuff that makes a Far Cry game. However, I gotta take three points off for this one. Every game on this scale has glitches of course, but the AI in this (on single-player) is just plain stupid, especially when you have a partner (even worse with two) assigned to your squad. First, they don't shut up - and when there's two of them and you're piloting a vehicle (car, boat, plane, etc), the convo-glitch between them is in full effect - repeating the same lines over and over. Second, they'll see a "Peggi" (bad guy) or hostile animal seemingly long before the hostile indicator lights up on your HUD and go ballistic. Same issue happens when talking to a character that you're trying to get a mission from. They'll be talking to you and suddenly see a bear just grazing in the grass 500 yards away and go into "conflict" mode and start running around being stupid - or worse, they'll jump into the vehicle you drove/flew up in and disappear into the void - leaving you to go seek another mission, by foot. Third, you waste plenty of time trying to get the AI partner(s) to get into your vehicle with you, especially a helicopter. They'll stand there or run around in circles forever before suddenly clicking and running into the seat. Like I said, every game has glitches, but these particular ones slow the flow of the game and make it frustrating - like continuously having to get out of your vehicle and back in it before the AI realizes it's time to go. And whatever you do, don't let your AI partners fly anything you're in. You'll never be able to get back into the plane or helicopter once you get out of it. no matter how many times you instruct them to land. As soon as your feet hit the ground, they'll immediately take off and just hover above you and you're stuck walking.

Another point mark down for the 20+ minute unskippable and barely playable intro (every few minutes or so, you might get to push a button or slowly walk around during the opening sequence). The story-line really isn't that deep to force you to have to sit that long through the intro. It's Far Cry man.. I get it.. bad bosses got armies of bad dudes doing bad things.. let's get to slaying!

And finally a point mark down for those stupid "Capture Squad" sequences, especially the "bliss" ones when in the female boss' territory. As you continue to wreak havoc in a boss' territory, eventually the boss gets pissed and sends his whole army to not kill you, but capture you so you can do some drug-induced shoot-em-up sequence, only to let you go to do more damage to their sanctioned area. This makes no sense.. if the boss has this capability, why not just end you 10 seconds after you cross into their territory? I know, a 5-minute game wouldn't sell that well, but still.

But on good notes, fun, funny, and over-the-top violent as usual, sans the boring fishing missions. It's worth your dime and I'm sure some DLCs are yet to come. The final boss showdown is not as climatic as the sequence that happens after you do prevail - once you are able to save four or five of your people, it's not that hard to get through, but what happens afterwards is eyebrow raising. But the story-telling, main missions, graphics, and weapon-play are the usual Far Cry fun-time madness.

Two notes: Gone are the radio-tower climbs. After the intro, there's one mission to climb a radio tower which is needed to open the full map, but that's the only required climb. There's some side missions that involve radio tower climbs, but not necessary to further the story line. Weapon variety is good, but really no need to load up/spend on all of them. Once I was able to afford the .50 cal sniper rifle and the high-powered scope, silencer, and extended mag, I was pretty much set. Taking down outposts hidden on a hill or rock-top was a breeze with that thing. You will need a good machine gun or rocket launcher to take down planes attacking you from the sky.

I anticipated this film's release for months since I had seen the trailer. During the trailer, my girl said "No. I've seen Ocean's 11", but I informed her that while it is an ensemble cast like the O11 films, it was a much different premise, explicitly catering to extreme violence.

Smokin' Aces starts off with a bang and doesn't disappoint in the violence and humor factor. Constant disregard for women, illicit drug use and lots of gun play. Screen favorites are the pseudo-lesbian duo of Georgia and Sharice (Alicia Keys & Taraji P. Henson) as the most professional hit-man duo with Sharice leveling a hotel floor with a 50mm machine gun in an attempt to free her partner from a precarious situation. Humorous appearances by Jason Bateman as a coked-out cross dressing lawyer, and the most ridiculous little boy missing his daily dosage of Ritalin you'll ever see.

Bullets and body parts fly, and bodies pile up throughout 90% of the movie, and then suddenly it all comes crashing down with an over-dramatic, albeit non-violent climax that seems that it was trying to send a message rather than continue to please us with violent eye candy. The ending tricks us into believing the most hideous act is about to take place by using close-up camera angles and building thematic music, only to just simply mellow out and the credits roll.

Despite the ending, Smokin' Aces is a great ride, full of every vice that makes going to these types of movies enjoyable for adults.

Forget the blood and the gore, that's to be expected with the 'Saw' series, and of course 'III' doesn't disappoint. But this time around, the movie actually explains the other two, and does it well, while winding a twisted plot around the current story. We learn the true details about Amanda (Shawnee Smith in her best acting to date), the setup for the first 'Saw', and even a little lesson about what is Jigsaw's definition of a murderer, which he claims not to be.

Excellent acting throughout, with many plot twists and turns which will keep you interested in the current story while appreciating knowing how the other stories came about. Flashback scenes do not take away from the current story and do not interrupt the continuity of the film.

And oh yes, there is still even more blood. 'Saw' is truly shaping up to be the best TRUE horror movie franchise of our times. Jason, Michael Myers, and even Freddy can't touch this series. While Jason & Myers were basic creature won't die flicks, and even though the Freddy series took it to another level with style, humor, and interesting story lines, all three of those deal with the supernatural. 'Saw' deals with true human interaction without resorting to fantasy.

'Saw III' even leaves you anticipating next year's Halloween weekend for when IV hopefully will come out.

Quick summary: Hottie in leather with British accent, relentless graphic violence, gratuitous sex scene, a few pauses in the action resulting in moments of "what the f-ck are they talking about??", awesome character CGI/makeup effects.

Don't go if you're really interested in whatever the hell they were talking about: licans, hybrids, eternity, extracting centuries of memories while sucking blood, and the usual confusing rhetoric.. uh yeah, whatever. Go for the eye candy, and you'll be pleased.

I give it a 7 out of 10, based solely on the amount of violence/gore in the movie, as it rounds out at one hour and 46 minutes, unlike the original which spent almost 2 and 1/2 hours explaining the plot with little action.

Whatever there guy..

In any event, it's nice to see the talented Bialik still do some kind of work in the field. Hopefully she'll revive her acting career.

First off, I can't understand how Foster would turn down the reprising role of Clarice in a sure to be hit "Hannibal" and then accept the role for this sleeper. Of course, "Hannibal" was not a hit, which I think the poor turnout had a lot to do with her not taking on the role.

But anyway, the premise for this movie about a separated mother and her diabetic teen daughter being terrorized by would be thieves, probably would have been better suited for more up and coming younger actors than the superstars Foster and Whittaker. If they used younger stars (like those of the teen thrillers), it probably would have done better. Adding Foster and Whittaker immediately placed the film into a more adult market, and this may be why it didn't do so well. I could see Leto and the surprisingly talented newcomer Kristen Stewart in their roles, but Foster and Whittaker seemed out of place.

The movie is rather slow at times to be a thriller and I caught myself dozing at various points. Foster just goes thru the motions of the script, and never convinces me that this role was no more than just some quick pocket cash. Whittaker is pretty good as the tough but compassionate lead thief, and I would like to see him in more "bad guy" type roles, but it's still not a type of movie I expect to see him in. Leto is very good as the hotheaded young "rookie" thief, and newcomer Kristen Stewart did the best acting job - from being the sassy teen to the near death diabetic teen.

Overall, to me, the best part of the film is the cool style in which the opening credits were displayed. After that, it just cruised along in slow motion without really causing even a stir, yet alone "panic". This is a $1.00 show movie, or wait for the 5 day rental stickers to appear at the video store. 4 out of 10.

First off, to the parents that saw the cutesy previews and read the "Disney-esque" title and took their kids to see this flick, only to be apalled, I'll apologize for my praising of this movie.

But to everyone else that went to see a film called "Bubble Boy" with the intentions of being treated to a "high quality" comedy, and couldn't appreciate the dry-witted humour, too frickin' bad.

This movie was a gem. I rented it with the intention of showing the kids but with the "PG-13" rating, I decided to watch it first because maybe I'd be able to appreciate it more than the preteens. What I watched was something that was maybe one or two "fucks" (the word) or comedic violent scene (a cow laying in the road is mutilated by a bus-load of cultists while its being prayed over by a Hindu ice cream truck driver) away from an "R" rating (probably had to cut out some stuff), but overall had humour that I know the kids wouldn't understand. From Jimmy popping his first boner in front of his over-bearing Mom, to Danny Trejo turning in a rough-but-still-laughable rendition of a hardcore and yet caring biker.

All the characters are silly and the placement of well-known faces in silly roles (Fabio as the cult leader) to me, made this movie "high quality" along the lines of "Dumb & Dumber" and "Me, Myself, & Irene". Critics need to be able to understand and laugh at all types of humour, from Woody Allen, to the Airplane!'s.

My suggestion: rent the movie, put the kids in bed (if u got em), grab your bowl, bong, or whatever party favour you enjoy, and pop the "Bubble Boy" in. You will enjoy it.

Rating: 8 out of 10

-markd

Okay, first off, I'll admit it.. I rented this movie solely because I wanted to see if Kristy Swanson would finally do a nude scene. Well, I don't want to spoil it for anyone expecting the same, but I must (might save you some money). This sex thriller has lots of sex, but not the flesh. Swanson is scantly clad, but not nude. There's lots of flesh scenes, but it's mostly thighs, legs and stomachs. In fact, not a single breast shot was seen. The only nudity in this flick is an underwater butt shot which I think is Baldwin's.

All that said, onto the actual review of the movie. I expected (wanted) a nude Swanson and ended up with a decent B-movie erotic thriller. This movie proves that you can have suspense and eroticism, without the obligatory breasts shot. Predictable at times, it still held my attention throughout and wondering how the experimenting couple would finally be rid of their new partners.

For those debating whether or not to rent this movie, wait for it to appear (again) on cable, it will save you $3-$4. But when it does, be sure to catch it because it ain't all that bad.

Okay, first off, I'll admit it.. I rented this movie solely because I wanted to see if Kristy Swanson would finally do a nude scene. Well, I don't want to spoil it for anyone expecting the same, but I must (might save you some money). This sex thriller has lots of sex, but not the flesh. Swanson is scantly clad, but not nude. There's lots of flesh scenes, but it's mostly thighs, legs and stomachs. In fact, not a single breast shot was seen. The only nudity in this flick is an underwater butt shot which I think is Baldwin's. And to debate another's review here in the comment section, Swanson did a better pseudo-lesbian scene in "Higher Learning" with Jennifer Connelly.

All that said, onto the actual review of the movie. I expected (wanted) a nude Swanson and ended up with a decent B-movie erotic thriller. This movie proves that you can have suspense and eroticism, without the obligatory breasts shot. Predictable at times, it still held my attention throughout and wondering how the experimenting couple would finally be rid of their new partners.

For those debating whether or not to rent this movie, wait for it to appear (again) on cable, it will save you $3-$4. But when it does, be sure to catch it because it ain't all that bad.

Given that this movie was put together in less than a year might explain its shortness (81 minutes - including end credits, so roughly 76 minutes of actual film). But what it cannot explain is its lack of humor that the previous film possessed.

The gags are quick and sometimes not even funny. The only true funny parts are the quick spoofs on the Nike basketball spots, James Woods' portrayal of Max Van Sydow's character in the Exorcist, and bits and pieces scattered throughout the film. Very unfunny was the take off of Charlie's Angels, which like the first Scary Movie and the Matrix spin off scene, basically recreated the scene without much humor injected into it.

Today's youth might not be able to relate to the spoof gags of the classic supernatural horror films of the 70's such as the Exorcist and maybe of the 80s' Poltergeist, et. al.

Hopefully Scary Movie 3 will take some time to put together, making the spoofs more enjoyable.

One thing though, the film features more than the last one of promising young actress Anna Faris (whom I will admit seemed exceptionally hot in the sequel). Just for her casting and acting ability, I give this movie a "3" out of "10".