Reviews

Before I get started, let me say that yes, I was a fan or the original British show, and yes I think it would have been nice if ABC would have just shown the original series instead of remaking it. However, when you consider that these days the networks are hungry for shows that can provide massive ratings for years, and that the British version only had enough episodes in to cover one season of American TV, you can't really blame them for remaking it instead of showing the original version.

That being said, how does ABC's version hold up? Well, going by the first episode, it looks like they're off to a great start. Remaking shows that already have an international cult following is a tricky task to pull off. NBC fell flat on its face when it tried to remake "Coupling" and it wasn't until "The Office" started to stray from it's British counterpart that it found it's footing. But somehow, "Life on Mars's" premiere episode managed to feel as fresh and original as if it was being made for the first time for ABC. I never really felt that there were moments that got lost in translation by Americanizing the story. In fact, there are moments that I feel were pulled off better in ABC's version than in the original, such as the scene where Sam Tyler, the protagonist, realizes something strange is going on as he looks upon the World Trade Center.

So for those of you who aren't BBC snobs, you're wondering how does the show stand on it's own ground? I think this one's got a great shot. It's an interesting take on the cop drama premise, mixing a cop show with a thriller about paranoia and insanity. I also think it has the potential to be a show that's easy to pick up on later down the line, without having to know every nuance of every character, (such as "Lost").

What I like best about it is that since ABC presumably has plans to keep this show around for a few seasons, hopefully the American version will go much deeper into the mystery of what exactly happened to Sam Tyler. If there was one problem I had with the British original, is that it had the potential to explore the scenario much deeper than it did, but ended far too soon. Hopefully ABC will keep this version going for years to come.

This movie left me in a strangely ambivalent state after I watched it, because I'm not sure if I'm judging it on its actual merits, or my expectations. Having been a fan of Chuck Palahniuk's novel, I was expecting something brash, frenetic and perfectly offensive, but in a good way. The problem is that while the novel was blunt and vulgar, spelling out every bit of Victor Mancini's sexual exploits in almost academic detail, the movie stops a bit short of pushing the edge and instead leaves a lot of it up to suggestion.

Another reason that I'm not sure how I felt about it is because the director took a unique approach to the work that I'm still trying to decide if I liked or not. You see, Chuck Palahniuk's novels have a very distinctive narrative style to them, and in Fight Club (also based on one of Chuck's books,) director David Fincher emulated it perfectly. I'm talking mostly about Chuck's usage of repetition with lines such as "I am Jack's colon," Choke's director, Clark Gregg chose not to emulate this and instead brought the text of the book to life without mimicking it's distinctive narrative. So if you're a fan of Chuck's work, this may bother you. On the other hand, it does help Choke stand out on its own merits and not feel like it's trying to build off of the success of Fight Club.

So for those of you who haven't read the book, how does it stand? Well as I said before, considering how much more graphic and indecent this movie's source material was, I think the movie missed out on a lot of its potential. I almost feel like Clark Gregg went too easy on all of the characters making them come off as sympathetic when they worked better as being completely hopeless. It's also not as funny as it could have been, since a lot of Victor's (the protagonist's) interactions with everybody from the sex addicts, to the people in the historic reenactment village to the people he pretends to choke for, were all summarized too much, and had much more potential for comedy. Overall i'd say this movie is alright, but could have been done better.

I hate to say it, but this is one of those movies that actually makes you think less of the actors for having decided to star in it. The premise had potential, and with Tim Roth and Naomi Watts in the lead roles, you'd think it'd be it'd be a surefire thriller. Instead, this film delvers pretty much nothing. It's not very thrilling or scary. It doesn't really make much in the way of social commentary. So if anything, it's just an annoying movie.

My main problem with this movie is that it tries to be clever in an over the top way. At a few points, the people terrorizing the family even turn to the camera to point out what a valiant effort they are making as characters to defy the usual movie clichés.

To make things worse, this is the kind of movie that genuinely had the potential to be genuinely thrilling. It starts out building in a slow and unexpected manner so that once the family realizes what is happening to them, it's too late. Then there's the violence. One thing that actually is clever about Funny Games is the fact that all of the violence is implied. Much of the tension that builds is because we don't always know what's happening to the characters, especially when they're in their most taxing situations.

Unfortunately, the director opted for a far too anti-climactic ending. I still don't even know what to make of the ending. There's no tension at the end. No surprises. It just stops. An not in some sort of abrupt cliff-hanger way either. It just coasts into the credits.

So in my opinion, there are a ton of other movies you should see instead of this, depending on what you were hoping to get out of it. If you liked the premise, then you'd be better off with 2008's The Strangers. If you want something to genuinely unsettle you, go with Session 9. if you want something that will shock and offend you, go see The Rules of Attraction. But there is no reason to pick up Funny Games.

The Strangers is a movie that delivers everything it promises it would. It scares you. Simple as that. Instead of relying on buckets of gore and an over-contrived premise, it keeps things simple and thats what makes it work. For an hour and a half, the viewer is subjected to a slowly mounting sense of dread that just keeps building without ever pulling back. The story never falls victim to the usual horror movie clichés, but at the same time , it doesn't make any ridiculous attempts to go against them. Perhaps the best thing that the movie has going for it is it's believability. There isn't really any thing to distract the viewer from buying into the premise wholeheartedly. Considering that this is the director's first ever movie, it's a feat that's even more impressive. This is the kind of movie you shouldn't watch at home alone in the dark.

Although I expected this movie to be good, I was still impressed by how brilliantly executed it all was. Instead of just having the characters sporadically (and awkwardly) break out into song, Director Julie Taymor seamlessly mixes the spoken dialog and the music. What's even more impressive is how easily she takes the movie from realistic imagery of the 60's to the surreal and back again. What's best about this movie is that the story itself could have stood on its own, but combined with the music of the Beatles it just made it into something fantastic. I don't think you really have to be a Beatles fan to enjoy this movie either, in fact a lot of the songs I had never heard until I saw this movie, and some of their more familiar songs are used in unexpected ways, but they always work.

Granted so far only one episode has aired, but it was a hell of a pilot. That one episode carried so much depth, humor and character development it felt like it could have been its own movie, and lucky us, we get to see another installment each week. So far it seems like this show might just find that right niche of being enough like the high concept quirky dramas like Desperate Housewives, Lost and Heroes that saved us from the reality TV bubble, while at the same time not burdening viewers with over reaching plot lines. Quite frankly, if they put this show on DVD tomorrow, I'd buy the whole season. I'd be amazed if this show didn't make it next season, and if for some crazy reason it doesn't, this show will definitely gather enough of a cult following to ensure that somebody does.

Usually when a film gets made about a media grabbing unsolved crime, the resulting movie tends to be overtly sensational and at best remotely connected to what really happened. Considering that director David Fincher's last film about a serial killer was the gripping but deeply disturbing Se7en, his take on the Zodiac killer almost seemed primed to be an extreme, nail-biting thriller.

Instead what he's given us is a well argued thesis on the possible identity of the Zodiac. While there are some very intense scenes, Fincher takes a somewhat unexpected approach on the subject. All of the killings take place pretty early on in the movie, with the bulk of the story centering on the actual investigation into the killer by both the cops and a cartoonist who becomes obsessed with the case. In fact, the depictions of the murders are done in a manner that is fairly reverent towards the victims while still conveying the cruelty of them.

Some people may find themselves disappointed by this two and a half hour epic if they go in expecting the usual serial killer fare. But it's a must see for any fan of Fincher's work, or anybody who likes a good detective story.

Like a lot of film reviewers, I had a lot of reservations about this film when I first saw the trailer. At first I thought it was going to be just another hastily made CGI cartoon about edgy cartoon animals, filled with top 40 or dance songs and full of topical jokes. The fact that as I waited for the movie to start, half the trailers were for more CGI cartoons about edgy cartoon animals and the other half was for films about trash talking fairy tale characters.

Thankfully this movie was a blessed reprieve from all of that. In Flushed Away, Aardman studios has made yet another family classic that will still be as entertaining ten years from now as it is today. Granted, it's loaded with a lot of pop songs and oldies, but most of them are sung by a chorus of slugs (which makes for one of the best running gags I've seen in a while).

The story actually felt pretty fresh for a family movie, or any movie for that matter. While it's by no means unpredictable, it doesn't feel too much like it's treading over the same ground most family films seem to go over these days. The jokes were surprisingly clever too. While there's the usual slapstick humor, there's also plenty of highbrow jokes thrown in the mix. (How often do you find references to Kafka in an animated feature, after all?) What I liked best about this movie was that Aardman stayed true to its roots of making stop-motion films. My initial worry was that they had sold out and were going to just make CGI films from here on out like everybody else, but when you watch this film, you'll see that they do as much as possible to maintain the look of their other animated films like Chiken Run and Wallace & Gromit. Overall this is a great selection to take your family to see, and worth seeing even if you're a grown up too.

Lately it seems that a brand new genre has been emerging of films that are equal parts solid drama and off-the-wall comedy, such as Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine. The problem with Running With Scissors is that it felt like it wanted to be one of those movies, but fell short. Rather than mixing the drama and comedic elements of the film, the film swings from moments of hilarious absurity to moments of grave seriousness, but the tranitions are far from smooth. The strange thing is that there were a lot of moments in the film that felt like they could have been funnier (and were used to much comedic effect in the ads) but because of the music it would come off as strangely tragic instead of funny. Overall the film was intriguing. Some of the more heavily dramatic parts seemed to drag and felt a tad pretentious, but that's probably because I went in expecting a comedy. (So if anybody should be blamed for that, perhaps it's the marketing department for the studio.) The one problem I had with the film that I feel really stopped it from being so much better was that the director relied far too heavily on slow motion montages with rock music playing in the background. It seemed as if every time they wanted to get into the characters' heads they'd slow down the speed and crank up the volume. This film is definitely worth seeing for the performances, and the funny parts are pretty hilarious (Brian Cox's bathroom epiphany is easily the best part of the film).The directig could have used some work though, but it seems like this director's next film has the potential to be pretty solid.

For the most part, I've been a fan of Danny Boyle's works since Shallow Grave. Thus it is with much regret that I have to say that he's manage to replace The Beach as his most inferior work. Gratned, Vaccuming was a made for TV movie, so in that way he's excuse for not putting his best foot forward here, but this movie could have stood to use a hell of a lot more polish.

The film's problem is that it's too rushed and frantic. There's a lot of plot points that could have used a little embellishment, but instead we're made to sit through an hour and fifteen minutes of Timothy Spall mumbling his lines at full volume. Spall does a good job with his character, but his character is so over the top that it's a bit much to handle at times.

There are a few moments of brilliance though, such as when one character manages to find himself wearing nothing but a speedo and cat ears with various noteworthy photographs pasted to his body. And then of course there's what Danny does best, namely give you a moment of hilarity and then dash it with moment of harsh reality.

It's an alright movie if you're a die hard fan of British comedy or Danny Boyle's works (and I do emphasize die hard) but I'm not even sure it's worth paying four bucks to see at Blockbuster. If you must see it, get it from the library, use a free rental if you have one or throw it in your Blockbuster/Netflix queue so you don't think to yourself, "I paid four bucks for this?"

After seeing this movie, I was a bit surprised that they decided to release it during the Christmas season. The film isn't really a blockbuster action flick, but more like a really bizarre film noir with a lot of guns and flipping.

Fans of the show certainly won't be disappointed, nor will people who just love sci-fi in general. The acting is solid and so is the story. The thing that may put non sci-fi fans off from it is that it's not a "Matrix" style action flick where guns are blazing every five minutes to cover up the plot holes (although the film's climactic standoff does get the adrenaline rushing.) On top of that, there's no bones about it, this movie is just plain weird. All of the rebels have crazy implants that let them do stuff like heal gunshot wounds with skin from their neck, everybody's monitored by a liquid surveillance system, an oh yeah there's this zeppelin with tentacles floating about the city.

Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with those things. In fact all of those things make Aeon Flux a dazzling spectacle to enjoy, and would probably be better enjoyed if it weren't going up against Narnia and King Kong.

Its rare to find a family film that is barely tolerable enough to see if you're not bringing little ones along, but Burton's version of this Roald Dahl classic is so well executed that grown ups will forget they're not the target audience. Don't get me wrong though, it's still appropriate for kids, (arguably more so than the nightmarish Willy Wonka and the Chocholate Factory,).

Right from the start, the film grabs your attention, when see Wonka's chocolate bars being made in a manner that is strangely ominous, and from there it just hits the ground running. With the exception of Charlie, the other four winners of the Golden Ticket contest are brilliant over-the-top exaggerations of the result of bad parenting yet at the same time come off as believably realistic.

While Freddie Highmore does an excellent job as Charlie Bucket, Johnny Depp and Deep Roy both manage to steal the show. Depp's version of Willy Wonka manages to have just the perfect amount of quirkiness to him without being cartoonish, and thankfully has none of the eerie maniacal undertones of Gene Wilder's version. And perfectly complementing Depp is Deep Roy as the oompa loompas. Instead of the psychedelic orange skinned midgets most people think of, Burton has made them a tribe of strangely identical miniature jungle woodsmen. And believe me, these little fellows do everything from being vinyl clad workers to synchronized swimmers to heavy metal rockers.

All in all, this film is a must-see for any fan of Tim Burton, Roald Dahl or just anybody looking for a solid two hours of escapist fun.

I suppose I had initial hesitations about this movie. Considering how another Christmas classic, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, was severely butchered and over-hyped when it made the transition to the big screen, I think many others as well as myself were worried the film could only spoil our memories of Van Alsburg's classic.

Rest assured, this film lives up to and exceeds expectations. First of all there is the look of the film which does a great job of recreating the visual feel of Christ Van Alsburg's book. But more importantly, even though the story had to be expanded, (come on, the book was only about thirty pages, and most of those are filled with pictures,) it fully captures the essence of this holiday classic and adds more to it. The performances are simply wonderful, and the cinematography is beautifully dream-like. I admit there were one or two scenes that were so well done I almost wished I could jump in and join in the fun the characters on screen were having.

Overall this is certainly a film people will be watching every Christmas years from now, and will probably be as equally cherished a holiday classic as the book itself.

I had to admit that I had my reservations about this movie. I mean the previews looked good, but in the back of my mind I was expecting a generic teen slasher movie. Instead I got a solid thriller that just happens to have a young cast. I was pretty much on the edge of my seat for this one. Like I said before, this isn't some cheezy slasher movie where the director thinks he can inspire fear through a high body count and lots of gore. Instead this one seriously focuses on our three heroes and makes you seriously terrified for them. The whole atmosphere of the movie is so tense that even in the scenes where the charachters dont look like theyre in remotely any danger I was still tense. This is definetly a movie you should check out if you want a great suspense movie with some solid acting.

Now don't get me wrong, the film is alright, but its nowhere near as good as the cult following this film has makes it out to be. On the plus side, the cast is definetly great. All the principles are completely immersed in their roles, and give magnificent performances. However the directing does feel a bit amateurish at times, and the script is out and out weak. The story revolves around a botched diamond heist where the thieves involved suspect one of their own is a rat. I don't know if it was because of a small budget or just a weak script but the story doesnt come off as good as it sounds.

For starters the film uses a very disjointed means of telling the story. However there's no real flow to it. Most of the movie is set in a warehouse after the robbery, with the charachters trying to figure out the snitch. You'd think the movie would build up to this fact, but it gets revealed midway through. Fair enough. In fact the part of the movie that goes into the snitch's story is probably the best part. So you'd think there'd be some really big conclusion instead, right? Not really. This film has got to have one of the weakest most abrubpt endings I've ever seen. Hell they never even actually show the robbery, which sounds interesting and is something i would have like to have seen as a viewer, but instead its only referred to. So, if you're really big on violent crime films, fine. Go ahead and give it a go, but be warned, its nothing compared to the work of, say, Guy Ritchie. And if you're just seeing this movie to find out what all the buzz is about, you're going to be really dissappointed. Go rent something like Jackie Brown or Snatch instead.

I think the only possible explanation of how a movie like this could possibly be popular is that alot of drug addicts must like it. For us good sober Americans, this movie is entertaining for at most a half hour, simply becuase two heavy drug addicts are somewhat funny to watch. But then it just drags on and on. And worst off, there is no plot, none that i can discern at least, other than two drug addicts go to Vegas and walk around high. Thats it! For two hours and more cameos than Charlies Angels, we see Depp and Del Toro walk around stoned, most of the time muttering unintelligable gibberish. This movie will not capture your attention. You will be sitting on your couch and when you wake up two hours after you started you will realize that yes, it is still going on, and no there is no way of knowing when it will end. Its amazing how much this movie can suck, seeing as how the director is great as are the two lead actors. All i can say is whoever greenlighted this project that at most should have been a ten minute gag needs to be fired. If you want to see a funny trippy movie, rent Brazil. Fear and Loathing should be avoided like the plague.

I was fabulously impressed with this movie. I thought it was a great send up of those old black and white movies with Jimmy Steward or Carey Grant. This is the story of a newcomer to the big city who gets promoted from the mail room to being the president of the company in a day as part of a scam to drive down the price of the company's stock, but he unexpectedly comes up with an idea that sends it through the roof. The casting in this movie is absolutely perfect, from Tim Robbins down to the guy who watches the clock tower. I definetly loved the sets which totally immerse the viewer in 50's art deco fantasy. Just a little heads up, the ending is a tad unconventional, but suprisingly effective, and hey, its a Cohen Brothers movie.

I think the people seeing this movie are broken down mainly into three groups: those who saw Silence of the Lambs, those who read the novel, and those for whom this is their first exposure to Hannibal. For those of you who saw the prequel, while this is a great movie, you should know going in that the story is done differently than the previous film. Where Silence of the Lambs focused more on the character Clarice Starling, as the title would suggest, the focus of this story is Hannibal. Also the settings aren't as dark, but still the film definetly packs the suspense of its predecessor. Oddly enough it uses humor in a rather intriguing manner in some of the more tense scenes that don't relieve the tension as much as it does intensify it. Those of you who read the novel won't be dissapointed. In some ways its more refined than the novel, but in some ways it does lack. Its more refined in the sense that the plot is more streamlined, and the pace of the story feels faster than the novel. For example some of the less crucial characters, (such as Verger's sister) are either removed, or their roles were edited down in the story. However while this gets the plot going, it also hinders character development. So while Mason Verger seems evil, doesn't appear as evil as you know he is, Starling doesn't take as big a fall from grace as the book shows, and Hannibal doesn't seem as much of an anti-hero as he used to. However, you will definitely find the ending intriguing. Now for those of you who haven't read any of the novels or seen the movies, well you're in for a treat. Don't worry, the plot of the story stands enough on its own that you won't be confused from not knowing what happened before. Hopkins once again delivers an excellent performance as Hannibal, and as does Julianne Moore as Agent Starling. Ridley Scott's directing is simply amazing. The scenes are all beautifully filmed, (yes i know thats an odd word choice for a movie about a serial killer, but from Florence to Washington, every shot is simply breathtaking.) The score is equally amazing, and makes exceptional use out of the operatic peace that is heavily used. This film has two of the most intense scenes I have ever seen filmed, which even though they get a bit gruesome, you won't want to close your eyes for fear of missing what's going to come next. This film is definetly one to see.

I was all around impressed with this movie, not only by the cast, but also by the story. Bruce Willis gives another great performance that shows how versatile he is. You think his charachter is a total jerk at first, but at the end you really symathise with him. Spencer Breslin also was amazingly convincing as a young Bruce Willis, and really deserves credit for letting everybody say the things they say about him on screen. I must also say Emily Mortimer was the perfect casting job as the female lead, because not only is she a great actress, but she's so loveable you can't help but wonder what Russ (Willis) doesn't see in her.

As for the story itself, it was a breath of fresh air as far as family movies are concerned. The plot stuck with everything you were expecting it to, (I got a bit worried when they referred to a baseball commissiner twice early on that it may become intergral to the plot later. That would have been bad). The story wasn't too childish for adults like say Thomas and the Magic Railroad, and not to harsh for kids like Small Soldiers. Thankfully alot of the more out there plot points are left to the imagination, like why it all happens, but if they tried to explain it, it would have been distracting anyway. This movie is a must see for Bruce Willis fans, or anybody looking for a good family flick/romantic comedy.

Before I get to the movie itself, I want to comment on the ad campaign for Bicentennial Man. For some reason they made it seem like it was a comedy, when in fact it's more of a drama. On the other hand they didn't go along with the modern ad campaign idea of giving away the entire plot, for which I'd like to thank them. As for the film itself, it is a bit slow, but you have to realize that we're talking about a story that takes place over 200 years. The plot is definetly one of the best science fiction plots I have ever come across, and in fact it would be nice if more science fiction films of this nature were made, instead of Brain Eaters from Planet X 4. The story is definetly classic Issac Asimov, which as any fan of his works would tell you is less about attempting to predict the future, and more about humanity clashing with science. Robin Williams does an excellent job going from being a robot to more human than human, and the rest of the cast does amazing performances as well. It is a very touching heart warming film, that doesn't get cheesy. If you enjoyed What Dreams May Come, then you'll definetly enjoy this movie as well.

I once thought that There's Something About Mary was as far as you could push the envelope before a film became tacky and flat out offensive, yet somehow the Farrely Brothers managed to go even further with Me, Myself and Irene. It really makes you wonder how the had the nerve to actually write some of these jokes down on paper, and for Jim Carrey to act them out. This film is darker than the other Farrely movies, but that really works well, especially with Hank, Carrey's characther's dark side, who probably does some of the raunchiest things seen or inferred in a movie aimed at a mainstream audience. The best part is when he goes off the deep end for the first time. What you see in the TV ads hardly scratches the surface of this movie, although you'll probably never be able to look at a "Got Milk" ad the same way again. I think the only problem with the Farrely brothers movies is that they tend to write rather straight forward movie plots, and load them with cartoonish humor, which works, just as long as you don't think about it too much. This is definetly a movie to see if you liked their previous flicks, but if you're easily offended, stay away.

If John Woo released this as a regular movie, it would have been okay, but the fact that he tried to pass it off as being Mission: Impossible is almost insulting. What is definitely insulting is that instead of being one of those clever movies you have to see at least twice to see what you missed the first time, (i.e. Usual Suspects, Mission: Impossible 1), its a bland attempt at a James Bond flick. Speaking of Bond, the villain was ripped straight out of Goldeneye, and even looks like Sean Bean, (Actually he's named Sean too). The opening car chase sequence was taken right out of Goldfinger. None of the cleverness or stealthness and espionage from the first one is left in this movie. In fact all that is left from the original is the masks (which are grossly overused), a rip-off of the famous Black Vault scene (which also has Ethan gracefully stop short of smacking into the floor,) and the theme song which got sampled into a Limp Bizkit song. In other words, don't see it in theaters. Instead, wait until it comes out on video so you and your friends can have fun criticizing it to shreds in the comfort if your home.

Warner Bros. finally figured out with The Iron Giant that just because it's a cartoon, doesn't mean it needs to be a Disney knock off, with songs and a neat and tidy G rating. With Titan A.E. Fox built on that by making a pretty well made animation movie geared at slightly more mature audiences but still marketable for kids. Its great to see that American film makers are starting to see that you can make high quality cartoons that aren't necessarily kids movies. The animation is incredible in this movie, especially how realistically the human characters are drawn. However, the computer animated material does tend to stand out on occasion, but for the most part, it blends in quite nicely. I especially liked the humor in this movie, some of it being reminiscent of his work in the Dragon's Lair and Space Ace games. This one is definitely bound to be a cult classic in years to come.