Reviews

Michael Moore isn't exactly known for being objective, but Health care is a far less politically charged issue than the terrorism he attacked in Fahrenheit 9/11. I think it's the lack of political rhetoric that lends this film one of its many strengths.

I am Canadian and I watched this film with my American fiancé. As we watched, we kept a running dialogue going about the differences and our own experiences in our respective health care systems.

The Canadian system is not as perfect as Moore depicts, we have problems with health care too. However, we are miles ahead of the U.S. and after watching this film I felt so thankful to live in a place that offers universal health care. However, I was also tempted to move to France.

A government should take care of its PEOPLE, not its CORPORATIONS. This is what the U.S. has backwards, the government exists only to benefit profit driven corporations.

The story of the man who was denied his bone marrow transplant or the little girl who died because the hospital the ambulance took her to would not admit her made me want to put my foot through my TV in anger. Had I grown up in the U.S. I may not have lived to write this. When I was 4, I had a high fever, similar to the girl in the film. Doctors told my parents I could have easily died if I hadn't been treated right away upon reaching the hospital.

By the end of the film I was extremely thankful for our imperfect yet universal system and my American fiancé was in tears at how poorly her own people were treated, especially after watching the segment where the 9/11 rescue workers were sent to Cuba.

Cuba is only an enemy of the U.S. because the U.S. Government tells the people that country is evil, the truth is far different.

Excellent film that everyone should see, if you aren't much of a Michael Moore fan.

Spider-Man 3 seems to follow the same basic blueprint of Spider-Man 2. Peter and MJ start to have relationship troubles, he begins to consider what Spider-Man means to him and how it's changed his life, all while a new villain is created and hatches a plot to get spidey.

But where it was done so wonderfully in Spider-Man 2, it suffers in this film. This is due mainly to two things. Firstly, we've already seen it before so it doesn't feel fresh as it did in #2. Secondly, Spider-Man 2 had only one villain so the story focused completely on Doc Ock and as a result he became a very multidimensional and compelling character. In this installment, the villain duties are shared between Venom and Sandman, and neither character is developed anywhere near the level Doc Ock was. Venom in particular is presented almost as an afterthought, though Topher Grace does do a good job as Eddie Brock.

There's a sequence in the film where Peter, possessed by the symbiote (the thing that gives him his black suit) starts doing some crazy things behaviour-wise. Although it's meant to be serious, they seem to go way over the top with it and it comes off seeming like little more than comedy relief. This particular sequence doesn't really seem to fit in the film very well.

The Harry Osborn story gets mixed up here too as he takes not one, not two, but THREE character turns in the course of the movie and the subplot involving him seems underdeveloped and rushed.

On the plus side, the special and visual effects are spectacular, save for one particularly cheesy scene where Spidey just happens to jump right in front of an American flag. The main actors do a passable job, Kirsten Dunst likely gives the strongest performance as MJ, also Rosemary Harris delivers another sweet yet strong performance as Aunt Mae.

The other bright spots acting wise were J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson and the incomparable Bruce Campbell as an extremely funny french maitre'd in one particularly memorable scene.

In conclusion, the film is a bit of a letdown, but the disappointment is compounded by the fact that all the pieces were here for a great story, but it just didn't pull together like it could've. Definitely worth the price of admission though, even an average Spiderman movie is a pretty darned good superhero flick.

Vacancy is very much a mixed bag as far as horror films go. On the plus side, it doesn't resort to using teenage actors which makes a big different. The atmosphere is excellent and the pacing is top notch. There's never too much going on, but never a lag either. The film does transition well from suspense to calm to suspense again in just the way every thriller does.

Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale also turn in solid performances, Wilson's in particular was pretty good. He played a perfect "scared guy" believable and not over the top.

On the negative side, the movie does use a ton of already massively overused horror movie clichés (middle of nowhere, car breaks down, characters find run down gas station/motel/store with creepy manager, etc.) . Now to the filmmakers' credit, some are done quite well, but that doesn't excuse the fact that most are tired and overdone as it is.

There also seem to be a few problems with the plot that weaken the film somewhat. Firstly, in the snuff videos that we see characters view, there is clearly sound, suggesting the cameras in the rooms can pick up audio. Despite this, the bad guys never seem to overhear all the plans the main characters make while trapped in their room.

Secondly, why are there no traps in the underground ducts liked barbed wire or rusty nails or something that would impede the progress of anyone trying to get through? I find it hard to believe that our two heroes were the first people to ever find and use them.

Thirdly, as a previous reviewer mentioned, it seems odd that despite all the murders that have been committed, the bad guys are still allowed to do their thing, you'd think someone would have investigated and busted them, especially with tapes and tapes of evidence sitting around.

And finally the ending just didn't seem to work. They went with an open ending approach, where there's no real wrap up and the audience is left to figure out how the story ends on their own. This type of thing can work effectively if used well, but it just falls flat here and seems to sudden. Instead of thinking "ohhh, I wonder how it turns out?" the audience instead thinks "what happened to the rest of the movie?".

The sad part is that the movie came so close to being a really clever suspense flick. Imagine if Luke Wilson's character had deliberately taken the "shortcut" to lure his soon to be ex-wife (whom he is already upset with) to the Pinewood and was in on it all along? That would be a great ending, but sadly this film suffers a decided lack of plot twists.

Probably not worth checking out in the theatre, but will make a great rental in a few months time.

We all know the story here.

United 93 offers great tension and drama all centered around a very real event. The fact this is based on a real life attack which most remember vividly makes it far more powerful than any fiction could be.

One of the constant themes of the film is confusion. So many times throughout the characters on screen are asking "what the hell is going on?" or some variant there of. Different agencies getting different information from different sources, with so much uncertainty it's not surprising the response was so slow.

The film's pacing is slow, but methodical, peaking every few minutes with another major event (one plane hits tower, second plane hits tower, plane hits Pentagon, air traffic grounded).

Sadly, you can't help cheering a little bit for the passengers of United 93. You know they won't succeed but it's hard not to find yourself hoping they will.

The filmmakers made a very wise choice I think by using almost no background music throughout the film, this made it seem much more realistic to the viewer.

There are also a couple of interesting 9/11 facts revealed at the films conclusion. Perhaps most disturbing of all, the authorities didn't know United 93 had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed.

See it if you can handle it, it will tug at your heartstrings the whole way through.

It's hard to say for certain if this movie lived up to the hype. It provides a good two plus hours of entertainment, but doesn't leave much of a lasting impression and you probably won't want to see it again.

In my places the movie plays it too safe, it's almost as if Ron Howard is terrified of doing anything that might offend the Catholic Church. As a result, the film does not push the envelope as much as the book does.

Tom Hanks does a decent job as Robert Langdon although he seems to be without emotion for much of the performance. There also seems to be a lack of chemistry between his character and that of Audrey Tatou.

The best performances in the film come not from Hanks but from the supporting cast. Ian Mckellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and to a lesser extent Alfred Molina account for most of the films more dramatic moments.

Yes there are many changes from the book, but the central plot twist revealed at the end is the same in both. In the movie though, savvy viewers will probably figure it out about an hour before it is revealed as it seems to be pretty well telegraphed through most of the films second half.

The film also seems to suffer from lack of comedy relief. There are perhaps two chuckles in the whole film. Granted, this is a serious subject, but even a serious film needs a bit of humor.

Is it worth the price of admission? Probably. Is it one of the best films ever made? Definitely not.

One of my favourite movies as a kid was this one, as it both made me laugh and scared me at the same time. I recently picked up a special DVD set of both Ghostbusters films and I still love watching them.

As a child of the 80s, I had all the Ghostbuster toys, the GB action figures, Ecto mobile, Firehouse. I only wish I'd kept them. My brother and I even dressed up as Ghostbusters one Halloween.

The film itself is very entertaining and really makes me miss good, intelligent comedies. There is not one single fart or sex joke in this entire movie and yet it's still really funny in some parts. I often wonder if good comedy movies like this still exist, one can only watch so many fart jokes until they get lame and boring.

Although some of the effects to seem dated, they hold up pretty well considering over two decades have passed since the production of this movie. The Stay Puft man is still one of the coolest bad guys ever.

If there's something strange in the neighbourhood...who you still gonna call?

No matter how much control a government may wish to exert on its citizens, there will always be resistors, those who simply will not allow their own minds to be taken from the. This was the base theme in 1984 and it's the base theme here.

V for Vendetta is not a straight up action movie, but if you are into politics and history to an extent, you'll find a lot to think about in here. The film really addresses a number of issues all to prevalent in the post 9/11 world: spying, government monitoring, controlled release of information/misinformation (spin).

The character of V is given a good deal of personality despite the fact he never takes the mask off, which will no doubt disappoint some. Natalie Portman, despite the forced accent is probably one of a select group of women who look about as good with a shaved head as they do with full hair. She wasn't overwhelming here, but she was certainly adequate.

V for Vendetta is a great film for anyone who is looking for a good story wrapped around some very cool action film fight sequences. Yes, the Alan Moore purists have come out in force pointing out all the problems with this movie, but the same thing happens with any other adaptation (remember Asimov fans tearing up "I, Robot"? The best advice is to treat the movie and book as two separate entities and judge each on its own merit.

First off Harrison Ford is still capable of playing these roles, he certainly did not come off as unbelievable for the most part.

The first hour or so of the movie is top notch and plays out exactly as any good action film should, the bad guys outmaneuvering the good guy at every turn so the audience hates them even more.

Unfortunately the second half of the movie is nowhere near as strong and I believe part of this is because Paul Bettany just does not play a convincing bad ass. He's a good actor, don't get me wrong, but he's far too lenient and soft compared to similar characters from other action movies. There is a scene where Ford and family attempt an escape, only to be foiled by their captors. Following this, Bettany does respond with a nasty act, but I kept expecting him to shoot (non-fatally) one of the family members or beat them with a club or other blunt object. There were also some logic issues that bugged me, but I won't get into them here as I do not want to spoil the film for those who haven't seen it.

Despite what I mentioned above, I found the movie to be well worth the cost of admission and a fun way to spend two hours.

3000 Miles to Graceland didn't win any awards, but it was never meant to. It was intended merely as stupid fun, a good way to enjoy a movie without having to think much.

I usually like heist movies, though this is nowhere near the Italian Job or Oceans Eleven it's still a fun romp and the Elvis element really gives it an interesting quirk. I don't really buy Kevin Costner or Kurt Russell as Elvis impersonators but then again, they are supposed to be criminals playing Elvis impersonators and in that respect they do fine.

I'm usually a sucker for these types of crappy movies but even I know that on most levels the movie doesn't get anywhere near good. You know what though? That's just fine with me because this movie's all about being bad.

I wasn't really keen on seeing this movie but one of my friends wanted to go and so obliged.

I wasn't particularly won over by it, but it does have some strong points.

I liked the way many of the memorable fairy tales we all grew up with were interpreted and in some cases warped in a rather dark and foreboding fantasy world.

Brothers Grimm is an experiment for sure, a unique movie that is almost without comparison because few other films have attempted to go where it does.

That being said, despite the fact this film has a fairy tale hook, the plot line is somewhat weak. I won't give too much away, except to say that there aren't many surprises awaiting the viewer.

Damon and Ledger are actually quite good as the Brothers, but the person I found most entertaining was the bungling French soldier assigned to them for most of the film.

Certainly not the best summer movie, but well worth a look if you have nothing better to do.

Don't get me wrong, this is not Oscar worthy in the least, nor does it stand as a particularly entertaining popcorn flick.

I love this movie because of it's incredible cheesiness, from the talking gorilla to Tim Curry's greedy diamond chaser to the absurd diamond laser plot line. I've read Crichton's book and it's quite good, the movie however, misses a lot of the time.

That being said, I still love watching it, I can't explain it, I guess it's so bad that it's good for a laugh whenever I see it, and watching people devoured by psychopathic gorillas never gets old.

If you've got friends over, pop this one in and give it the MST3K treatment, you'll have a blast I'm sure.

Like I said, no redeeming value to be had here but if you like watching bad movies just for the heck of it, this may be one to check out.

P.S. Joe Pantoliano's cameo is golden.

Having just seen this movie a few hours ago I still can't fully put into words how much this movie touches the heart. Don Cheadle turns in a masterful performance as Paul Rusesabagina. Sophia Okonedo gives a solid performance as his wife Tatiana.

I was only 12 when these incidents were happening and I do not remember them well, but I do remember all the coverage here in Canada because of Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire's constant pleas for international help in Rwanda. Dallaire I'm pretty sure is the basis for the Nick Nolte character in the film (the character wore a Canadian Flag patch on his uniform).

Cheadle's performance combined with the terrific direction of Terry George works wonders in helping the audience sympathize and feel for Paul who really was a reluctant hero type, but in the end did what he had to do.

This movie is about a genocide and there are some disturbing images, including one scene that takes place on a roadway. I won't reveal what happens, but it will be hard not to look away when you see it. This film is PG-13 and the violence is limited, but powerful enough that it still tugs on the heartstrings of the viewer. There are many real-life videos of the genocide much more gruesome than the movie depicted.

Hotel Rwanda worked great on two levels, first it displayed just how cold and destructive hatred can be and secondly it powerfully demonstrated that the rest of the World refused to help when it should have. How could all that killing be ignored? It just baffles me to know so many people could have done something and so few did.

It's rare I review a film that I can find no flaws in, but Hotel Rwanda is an exception, the film is very well done. Some have said Cheadle's accent comes of as a little corny, but it didn't bother me at all.

Hotel Rwanda has few explosions, no lengthy martial arts fights, no car chases and no scantily clad women. If you want to see that, you know where to go. However, if you want to see an excellent movie about how destructive human nature can be, see this film.

I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

I watched the just released DVD version of Return of the Jedi last night and I must say I enjoyed it. This is Star Wars after all, three of the most entertaining movies ever made.

Since about everyone over the age of 12 knows the plot of the saga, I'm not going to restate it here, what I will talk about is why I was disappointed with the DVD.

Let me say that I don't mind the special edition of "Jedi", the changes aren't extensive, save for the ending sequence and most of the alterations exist simply of some added visual effects or sharper appearances on FX elements like ships and lightsabers.

Sadly though, I do miss the ORIGINAL Return of the Jedi, the version I watched probably too many times as a kid. The DVD version is great, but it's just not the same. It's too bad the original theatre versions weren't included in the release. I know many a message board are dedicated to this debate right now so I won't go in to a long tirade.

I think the one thing that I dislike most about this version of "Jedi" and the special edition was the drastic change to the celebration song at the end. I much preferred the original song to the more syrupy tune in the new releases.

Well, at least I still have my VHS copy of this film...which likely WON'T find its way to my trash bin simply because this has now been released.

Take it for what it is...but it is ISN'T the original.

You won't find many movies with the look of 'Sky Captain', the film has a style that is all its own.

Apparently set in the 1930s yet featuring technology most of us associate with a time in the 2030s, 'Sky Captain' does a good job of blending the old generation with the new. I really did like the glossy look of the visuals.

The story is not overly deep and I would have loved to see some more backstory development for some of the main players, but for what it is,the plot is easy enough to follow along too.

Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow have great chemistry together here and I'm glad things between them stayed constant through the film. I could write more here, but I won't spoil the ending for those who haven't seen it.

Despite the fact I enjoyed "Sky Captain", I am still thankful these films are the exception rather than the rule. I still prefer films with real (or at least partially real) sets and shooting locations. I've read comments here about the quality of the acting in this film and that's a pitfall for so-called "Blue screen films". Even a great actor has a challenge when standing against a blue screen and pretending to respond meaningfully to something that's not really there. The acting here isn't down right corny, but I believe if the key players had more real surroundings to play off of, the performances would have improved. I also think Angelina Jolie's "Frankie" character deserved more screen time.

'Sky Captain' is an interesting experiment and certainly a movie that will hold your attention for 90 or so minutes (the movie is pretty short in comparison to other blockbusters).

So, if you're curious, check it out, you likely will get something enjoyable out of it.

This film was an incredible breath of fresh air from most of the so-called "summer blockbusters". Unlike the usual brainless popcorn flick, "Hero" actually makes you think about the story and draw some of your own conclusions from it.

If you don't like eastern style films, this is not recommended, but if you're free minded about movies (as I am), you may enjoy this.

First off, the movie is visually spectacular and not because of any large explosions or tidal waves wiping out cities. In every scene is it is apparent that what we are watching has been meticulously laid out beforehand for maximum beauty and effect. Let me put it this way, you could take almost ANY frame from this movie, and confidently put it on your wall, it really looks THAT GOOD.

Early in the film, I thought the story was pretty simple considering the scope this movie seemed to have. What appear to be several simple flashback sequences actually go on to tell the same story from three different angles and it's very interesting to see how each version develops.

The fight scenes are not realistic, but if you're a fan of these movies, you know that's to be expected. Having said that, the fights are not stupid to the point where they turn you off the film. Usually when you watch a fight you pick a winner and root for him to kick ass. In "Hero" you'll be caught up in the moment, focusing only on the swiftness and beauty of the sword work.

"Hero" is not a film for everyone, but if you are put off by the blockbusters hollywood throws at us these days and don't mind a subtitled film, check this one out. I challenge you to watch it and not be touched in some way.

These are the kinds of movies that don't get a high response during a theatre run, but after being released on video/DVD, develop a solid cult following.

Make no mistake, "Harold & Kumar" is the next "Office Space".

I actually really enjoyed this movie. The humor was crude at some points, including one scene set in a bathroom that I found more disgusting than funny. However, that's the exception in this movie.

The plot is basically several classic "rough night" stories strung together as Harold and Kumar (Cho and Penn) travel all around in search of a White Castle, while at the same time maintaining their marijuana supply. On route to WC, they have to deal with problem after problem, often coming up with very funny solutions. Without giving too much away, let's just say the cheetah scene in this movie is gold.

The true strength of the film is the terrific chemistry between Cho and Penn. These guys have terrific timing and play off each other so well, you can really enjoy their many amusing exchanges. Also adding to the fun are a series of cameos, Neil Patrick Harris, Ryan Reynolds and Eddie Kaye Thomas (Finch of "American Pie" fame) all make appearances. Also watch for Law and Order star Christopher Meloni as "freakshow" a role which seems way out there for him (it was funny though).

This movie is definitely a "stoner" flick and will probably be a thrill to watch on DVD with your buddies when it comes out.

Oscar worthy? No way. However, "Harold and Kumar" is a solid and fun adventure that anyone who has ever been in college can no doubt relate to. It also features one of the funniest lines ever: "Did Doogie Howser just steal my car?"

If you looking for a good "no brainer" comedy, you've found it.

Let me start of by addressing the Asimov fans who have cried foul because this movie "desecrates" the legendary original stories: This was not meant to be a direct adaptation of Asimov's ideas, it is rather a blend of some of Asimov's ideas with an original story, though the title could have been changed to reflect the lesser connection.

On to the film...

I'm an SF enthusiast, many of the films in my collection fall into that realm and so I probably judge films like this more harshly than others.

Having said that, I enjoyed it.

This was a fun way to spend a couple of hours. The film seemed to have a good balance of story and entertainment, but I liked how it left some questions unanswered.

Others have said that Will Smith has become pretty much the same character in ID4/MIB/Enemy of the State etc., but I disagree. I think Smith has added just enough uniqueness to each character to make them interesting and appropriate to the film.

I believe the future shown in this film will be accurate to the point that AI will become a very integral part of everyday life. I was surprised however, that virtually no one shared Smith's suspicions about the Robots. I myself don't really like the idea of turning over too many key tasks in our societies to machines and could easily relate to what Spooner was going through, but certainly I'm not alone in how I feel??

The CGI and visuals were slick and very well done, but be forewarned. It seemed to me that the trailers for this movie made it sound like the "Robot invasion" would be a more integral part of the story, it's really not so don't go if you are expecting a long drawn out "Cyber war". There are some cool fight scenes though.

This movie gives you a fun ride and a few things to think about at the same time. A solid popcorn flick. 8/10

Spider-Man 2 is a very respectable follow-up to the 2002 original. The sequel stays true to its roots and even does some good foreshadowing of the third chapter. I wouldn't say it's better than the original, I'd rate the two about equally.

On the positive side, the movie looks very sleek, the CGI has been updated and polished compared to the first film and the Doc Ock effects are excellent. The movie flows well and although you don't have to have seen the original to "get" this film, it does help tremendously.

On the negative side, it seems like Raimi has rehashed a lot of ideas from the original film. Without spoiling anything, let me just comment that there are a couple of familiar "damsel in distress" scenes and a familiar feel to the ending (at least, the first part of the ending. I loved the Dafoe cameo in the latter part). While I understand that superhero movies are somewhat formulaic by nature, I was disappointed that there were so many plot similarities here.

One other comment, I also felt the Alfred Molina was a great Doc Ock, but he should have been given more screen time, I wasn't able to connect with the character as much as I thought I would.

All in all a good film, this will most certainly be one of the best of the summer and far better than the upcoming "Catwoman". If you enjoyed the original, you'll enjoy this. If you didn't like original, you may not want to bother with this one.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in part 3.

Ok, I finally saw this awful movie on one of my cable channels (you thought I'd actually PAY for this? Not likely.)

Although Mr. Brest has been fully castigated for this train wreck of a movie, it's his writing abilities I take the most issue with.

The main thing I couldn't stand about this movie was the horrid dialogue! As I watched, I couldn't believe how stupid it was. Aside from the fact that Affleck's "gangster accent" is terrible, the lines themselves are uninspired and in some cases downright silly. Had this movie been scripted by someone else (and slightly recast) it may have gone somewhere.

It was psuedo enjoyable to watch because I just wanted to see how bad it really was, but aside from that there's not much value here. Certainly not worth a second watch for me and I'm sure not even a first for most people.

Stay far away folks...

Ok come on people, if you've watched Emmerich films before you know that the man is big on visual effects and small on science and TDAT is no exception. Don't go expecting Oscar level acting or deep character development.

Having said that, if you turn your brain off, sit back and enjoy it, you are in for a hell of a ride. I admit I'm a sucker for large scale destruction and well, it doesn't get much larger than this!

There aren't many movies that can sell on visuals alone but this movie is eye candy at its finest. Seeing New York frozen over and Los Angeles destroyed by tornadoes is actually very enjoyable. The Dennis Quaid character is pretty stereotypical of these movies, although he doesn't do a terrible job with it.

But really, you don't go to movies like this for the characters, you go for the big bangs and this film has plenty of them. Like I said, it's supposed to be mindless fun, but in this case there is a message behind it all. Global warming is a real threat and, although extreme, this movie puts the spotlight on the human impact on the environment.

If you aren't keen on shelling out to see this movie at the theatres (the visuals play really well on the big screen) at least consider renting it on DVD because it's one of the better B-movies out there.

Shortly after I saw this film, someone asked me if I enjoyed it. That's a tough question to answer. I didn't particularly enjoy sitting through the multiple beatings of Jesus, but I am thankful that I saw it.

Despite the very depressing, long and continuous flogging of Jesus at the hands of the Romans, there is a positive message here: BELIEVE.

Jesus kept his faith until the very end and even forgave those who brutalized him. How he had such convictions is beyond me, but the power of those convictions is never to be questioned. I seriously doubt that anyone can walk away from this film and not be impacted in some way by what they have seen.

This movie is a lot of things, but without a doubt it's one of the most powerful movies ever made. This one will keep me thinking about things for a long time...

I'm glad another season and a movie are being made but come on, this show should have been given at least a 5-season run from the get go. It's one of the funniest shows on TV and reminds so fondly of the best years of the Simpsons. Seth McFarlane and his writers come up with some truly hilarious stuff and Peter and Stewie are two of the funniest characters on TV next to Homer Simpson.

It absolutely sucks that Fox put this show through the wringer, but now the people have spoken (over 100 000 of them) and we'll be getting more Family Guy. Damn right?

...but what a way to go out!

Having watched all three LOTR films in the last 24 hours, I can honestly say that this trilogy marks a milestone in filmmaking. As other reviewers have mentioned, this installment seems to go by quickly, despite being over three hours long.

I am thankful the scriptwriters left the comedy out of this. It would have been easy to toss in a funny line here or there but thankfully there are virtually none, although I always get a kick out of Gimli and Legolas keeping track of their battlefield kills.

The battle sequences in this movie were masterfully done (the army of the dead is something to behold) and although some may argue the movie has five separate endings, each serves a purpose and by the time we are all done, every plot thread has been tied up.

Yes, the films don't exactly match the books, but the same is true of every book based movie. Considering the monumental task that lay before him when he took on this project, I think Peter Jackson should be commended for taking a much beloved literary work and transforming it into a spectacular film trilogy.