Reviews

I find it impossible to give this movie less than a seven, because, even if the ending was absolutely a letdown, the first 80% of the movie was so excellently constructed that its cinematic value cannot be lessened too greatly.

And excellent The House of the Devil is for most of its duration. Director/Writer/Editor Ti West shows a remarkable proficiency for being able to truly scare, through an excellent slow-burn build-up, allowing the atmosphere of the titular house and the anticipation for when it is inevitably released to bring a viewer to nail-biting fear, rather than simply trying to startle with constant Boo! Got'cha! "scares," or excessive gore. In the end, this method is far more effective and lasting, less artificial than the latter methods which seem to, unfortunately, be the bread and butter of modern American horror filmmakers.

However, when the denouement rolls around, this is completely thrown out the window. Sure, the gore may look nice (and indeed it does; not top of the line, but it belies the film's budget), but it completely abandons House's almost regal sense of restraint that worked so effectively for nearly the entire length of the movie. Not to mention, the transition in styles is itself so jarring that I was pulled from the experience for nearly 10 minutes, an unfortunate occurrence when that covers almost the entire duration of the remainder. The release of the built up fear was clumsy and ineffective, and the effect of the movie after the credits rolled was erased. I wasn't left with the feeling that something could be lurking just out of sight over my shoulder that the best horror movies provide; a tension that extends beyond the movie's run-time. This problem I believe to later be solved by Ti West's later film "The Innkeepers," a picture I believe (and seemingly in the minority) to be the superior movie.

However, despite its eventual letdown, the remainder of House of the Devil was truly a horror experience I rarely see from recent American horror films, this difference between House of the Devil and its peers thrown into sharp relief by the clearly nostalgic feel it gives off, even from the opening credits. Even the grainy camera shots add a sense of, for lack of a better word, enjoyable "retro" style, rather than becoming a detriment. And the camera work itself is also exemplary, snaking and twisting its way among the oppressive halls of the house that seems more an antique than something to be lived in.

The House of the Devil is unquestionably a good movie. For most of the film, I was completely drawn in, waiting with a rising anticipation to see what was lurking around the corner; The House of the Devil is truly scary even with its superficial sense of the mundane. Nothing is shown, save for one particularly haunting shot of what lies behind a door that remains (at least temporarily) unopened, and it is all the better for that. But this is before (please excuse the pun) everything goes to Hell at the climax. I'd certainly recommend this film; just don't expect the release to be able to come close to matching the rising action.

As a general rule of thumb, it's best not to try to take a timeless classic novel and try to convert it to the big screen (unless you happen to be named Peter Jackson.) Last time I checked, Andrew Adamson wasn't Peter Jackson. I liked Shrek and all, but the book that, admittedly, really funny movie was based on was by no means a timeless beloved classic. While I do not believe that Narnia books are nearly as brilliant as they commonly made out to be, I still have to give C.S. Lewis credit for making books as a segue into fantasy for the children too young to read the actual classic fantasy series The Lord of the Rings. So while I do feel that Narnia books are very over-rated, I can still see their worth in introducing 4 and 5 year olds to the genre (and seriously, 4-5 is about the age level these books seem to be written for.)

However, the movie adaptation takes the books' unengaging, repetitive nature, and then goes on to disregard all the values that made the books at least worth the paper they're printed on. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe adaptation attempts to be a poor man's Lord of the Ring. It keeps true to the books for the most part, but Adamson interprets what is not specifically specified in the book and tries to recreate the epic battle sequences found in both the Tolkien and the Jackson "Rings" trilogies. For example, in the novel version of "The Lion, etc." the final battle lasts somewhere around a page and a half. Along came the movie, and WHAM! 25 minute battle scene, anyone?

The fact the book was made into a movie at all was also a bad decision. The book is very slow, and takes it's sweet time in causing anything to happen. With only the two Shrek movies under his belt (and stuff was continuously occurring in those. Shrek is the definition of never a dull moment) Adamson has no real experience making anything with long slow bits of dialog that seems written by George Lucas (and no, that's not a compliment.)

The acting in the film wasn't horrible. It was a darned sight better than in that cinematic piece of crap called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Now there's a film that makes a Uwe Boll movie look like manna from Heaven. Comparatively, simply because the acting was completely atrocious, this film seems about on par with one of his. I'm not saying the acting was genius or deserves any special awards. On the contrary, it was quite forgettable. But therein lies the key. Bad performances, as well as brilliant ones, can be remembered for long periods of time. I guarantee that whatever you've heard about this movie, good OR bad, the conversation probably did not revolve around William Mosely or Georgie Henley, or any of the other actors. They are not memorable in the slightest.

So on the plus side, this movie didn't have me debating the merits of destroying a movie with nuclear weapons simply so future audiences don't have to sit through it and current audiences are put out of their misery. However, this came about as close as you can get to the point. Actually, Im being unfair. This movie is the perfect sleep aid. If you know any insomniacs, and Lunesta doesn't work, they may have found their perfect sleep aid. I know I did. And then, unfortunately, after the good night's sleep I was granted, I had to watch "This film that involves something to do with a gigantic carnivorous cat, a warlock, and a big closet" again. I did not fall asleep this team, and I was able to come to terms with how much of a cinematic turd this really is. It's just not the worst turd in existence. And that's a back-handed compliment if ever I saw one.

There have been movies, that I can admit are better than Event Horizon that I have given 8 or 9 stars to. But for some reason, I just like this movie more than many of those. The story isn't as strong, for one thing; at times it seems a little (okay, I digress, a lot) contrived. None of this matters, however, because this is just such an awesome film.

So the story itself centers around a spaceship that disappeared, and his since reappeared out by Neptune. This ship is the Event Horizon. A rescue vessel, the Lewis Clark is sent out to recover the ship, but it becomes apparent fairly quickly that something isn't right.

From this point on, the movie becomes a sci-fi gore-fest, but a good one, with a great story to back it up. The blood isn't constant, either. Event Horizon isn't made to be a slasher film in space.

The cast is phenomenal. I personally love Lawerence Fishbourne and Sam Neill. Neill especially is great as he slowly falls into insanity.

Event Horizon is a magnificently crafted sci-fi horror film, the best I have ever seen, along with Alien. Sure, there may be some small plot holes, but I haven't been this absorbed in a movie since Avatar. There's people who rip on Event Horizon for miscellaneous flaws. I'm not saying it isn't flawed. However, as I said before, there are movies with less problems that weren't as enjoyable as an experience. EH grabs your attention and absolutely refuses to let go for the next hour and a half. It's hard to believe it was made the same director who single-handedly ruined two sci-fi franchises at once. At least he made one excellent one.

Mike Myers has a talent for picking horrible movies to act in. Other than this, Austin Powers, and Shrek, has he been in any good movies? I mean, the Love Guru? Honestly, Mike? Was this a punk? Please tell me Ashton Kutcher was behind that. I can only be glad, I guess, that he started out in SNL, and did stuff that was actually funny. If not for SNL, Wayne's World, and Shrek, I honestly might believe that the Michael Myers from the Halloween movies might have a better sense of humor than this Mike, albeit a twisted and violent one. I have a feeling he would be a dead baby joke type of person. But Im rambling.

Anyway, among all the Mike Myers movies, this easily the best. It is so off the wall and unexpected that you can't help but laugh, if nothing else, and the quirkiness of the film endings. I mean the Scooby-Doo ending? Extremely close up? And of course the shpeel involving corporate advertising. How can this not make you laugh hysterically?

Not of all the movie is that good. But these sub-par elements are so minor in the film's context that they don't detract too much. For instance, the plot is paper thin. The movie seems to follow more of an hour and a half SNL skit (which, granted it was based on in the first place) rather than an actual movie format. And while some SNL skits have been turned into pictures on the silver screen, very very few of them are successful. (truthfully, how many of you could figure out a way to expand the Schweddy Balls concept to 90 minutes. Thankfully, this funniest of all SNL skits hasn't been desecrated by an extended storyline.) This stupid analogy was simply to explain how some skits, while side-splitting in six minute micro-doses would drag on and on if they tried to be expanded beyond their parameters.

Again, these severely restricted plots work better with this sketch than they would with almost any other, because the sketch itself is just so incredibly random. It has no problem going outside the parameters, because there weren't really any parameters or limitations to contain it. So while the plot is very limited, by no means is it fatally so. I also have the sinking feeling that any big plot added to the script would have dragged it down. It has an eclectic feel. Nothing is focused, and it leaves the jokes (and there are plenty) even more funny, because they come out of nowhere and are just so off the wall.

Mike Myers has a lot to do with this. The other characters don't add much of anything, except for Garth, but hey this is about Wayne, right? Mike Myers takes absolute control of the script, comically driving it on and on, in a flurry of hilarious relentlessness. (Did that sound really stupid, or was it just me?)

So, while it's not perfect, Wayne's Workd is much funnier than most other comedies. It is also one of the few movies where factors that so often worsen a film actually improve the comedic aspect, at least. And with that being the point of a comedy, I am certain it is absolutely true to say that Wayne's World is a genuine success.

The only thing I Am Legend and the 1971 Omega Man have in common is that they are both based on a 1954 Richard Matheson apocalyptic novel. Other than that, the zombies in Omega Man look like acne-ridden geeks who became zombies from sitting in front of a TV screen as opposed to being changed by a disease. The zombies in I Am Legend look like the crazed, beastly freak-shows they're supposed to be. Will Smith is actually a decent actor, if not earth-shakingly so, while Charleton Heston continuously left me wondering how he made it in Hollywood in the first place. Probably bribes or something. The last, and biggest, difference though, is that I Am Legend is good. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Omega Man.

What is it about I Am Legend that makes it good? It has some of the best suspense building scenes from 2007. While it never reaches full-out horror, there are plenty of intense moments. It's very psychological. Nothing is shown, really, violence wise. There is no gore or disembowelment's. This is all the better, as it makes moments like seeing a group of these creatures in an abandoned pitch black apartment building.

Will Smith is also very good. He provides a very powerful, if somewhat dry emotional, performance. He never has been one to get especially teary, or otherwise intense emotionally, except in Pursuit of Happiness.

The other characters don't stand out as much. No one is really bad, but no one is memorable, either. Of course, this doesn't make as big a difference as it would in other movies because, despite what the director tries to get the audience to believe, the only character that's important here is Robert Neville. And again, Will Smith does play him very well and believably.

The story itself is very simple. A disease has ravaged Earth, leaving most dead, and some zombies. Robert Neville is the last man alive. Honestly, that's such a great basis in and of itself that I can only imagine adding more complexity to the plot would diminish it rather than enhance it.

One more thing. I said earlier how Will Smith's performance, while very good, was somewhat emotionless. Well, I think I must say that he plays desperation very well, indeed. Sadness, not really. Happiness? If you want a movie that'll make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, my friend you have the absolute wrong film. This and the Road are probably the two most depressing-outlook apocalypse movies I've seen. (Although the Road to an even greater extent.) But anyway, when the time calls for it, Will Smith plays a man being driven to insanity by his own isolation and imminent doom very well. He's crazy. Are emotions really that important?

So while there may be some character flaws, they matter much less here then they would in pretty much any other film you would care to name. And the movie itself is fantastic, if not inspirational or uplifting, as Pursuit of Happiness was. But this is better than that one was. And much better than Omega Man. Oh, and I have to stay, as far as cinematography goes, that is one convincing utterly annihilated Manhatten.

Star Wars: The Phantom Mencae easily has two of the most annoying characters in film history. I'm talking about Jar Jar Binks and young Anakin Skywalker. These aren't just minor characters, either. I swear, if I heard one more yippee or the high-pitched nasal- whine, I was going to throw something through the TV. Fourtuneately, the TV is still there and I was able to restrain myself, especially since the rest of the film was pretty good. I love that pod race scene.

It should be understood immediately that the worst of the original Star Wars series is better than the best of the prequel trilogy. And this is by no means the best of the new saga. While it isn't bad, most of the movie is pretty fun, if not handled with utmost care. But those two aforementioned characters are really a horrible drag on the film. Jake Lloyd can't act worth a dime. And he looks nothing like Hayden Christensen either. Although that was a problem with future casting, so Ill save that rant for a later review.

As it stands, this is a movie with more impressive cinematography than an actual story. George Lucas basically took the information already revealed in the original trilogy and put in on screen, with a few characters tacked on. I got the feeling that with the ending already a foregone conclusion, Lucas seemed to forget to pay any real attention to the script. It's still somewhat interesting to see the origin story on screen, though. But those two characters...

The standbys from the original, and much better, trilogy are here, at least for the most part. The younger characters-Luke, Leia, Han Solo-they aren't, but Yoda's back, Obi Wan, etc. They're back and as important as Ever. (And Yoda still seems to be older than dirt.) He was also one of the coolest characters, and still is. Darth Vadar was pretty awesome too.

The cinematography is amazing. With camera jumping from desert landscapes to jungle terrain to whatever other geographical features anyone could possibly imagine. You know what would make these already impressive sets even better? If a certain Jar Jar character wasn't traipsing across them. I can put up with Little Anakin, at least, because Jake Lloyd isn't in any future films, and He is an integral character. I honestly sometimes wonder whether George Lucas just threw him in there to bug people.

So while the film isn't great, it is good for the most part. However, I can't honestly say I enjoyed myself when a certain two who will go unnamed left me debating whether or not to claw out my eardrums.

2009 was a good year. At least, it was in the cinema. With the exception of a select few, such as the second Transformers, Surrogates, and G-Force, there weren't really any bad ones. And there were some greats: The Informant!, The Road, Up, The Hurt Locker, and of course Avatar. Another name to be added to this list is Public Enemies, from director Michael Mann. Of course, I wasn't surprised. Johnny Depp does tend to pick great movies, although I don't plan on seeing Alice in Wonderland later this year.

The part I enjoyed most was the way Michael Mann built up suspense, and there was plenty of that, when the ending was already a given. That's the problem with movies rooted in fact: the ending is a foregone conclusion. Some movies can overcome this, though, as Public Enemies did, and to an even greater extent, Titanic. (Although I'm a huge James Cameron fan, so maybe it's just me.)

The other great thing was the cinematography. During the daytime, it looked almost fake, a little too period to seem real. It looked just like a Hollywood set, even in the real historical sites. At night, however, everything changes. The film comes alive. The nighttime scenes are where the energy is. Michael Mann's no fool, He knows this and takes full advantage of it, pounding relentlessly through wet streets, or outside a certain Wisconsin hotel.

This is the greatest scene in the movie, no question. The build-up of that tension steadily rises, the threat growing larger and larger. It's obvious something is about to happen, it's just a question of when and how. This is one of the better formatted movie scenes of the year, and would get the entire movie at least five stars all by itself.

2009 may also be considered the year Stephen Lang became famous, and for good reason. He's a phenomenal actor. Hollywood has finally rewarded his performance by giving him major roles in The Men Who Stare at Goats and Avatar. His performance in Public Enemies, while not a major role, still commands attention. Stephen Lang has a very pronounced stage presence. He uses it to great effect.

Michael Mann is very fit for this genre. Public Enemies dispels any doubt of that. And while not the best movie in 2009, (that's a very hard title to claim) is still very respectable and worthy of a watch, if not several.

This movie is middling in almost every way. It provides a couple laughs, every so often. The plot is interesting, occasionally. It is the second of a three movie trilogy. And of those three it is only mediocre one in the bunch. The only part that remains consistently strong is the original cast. The newcomers, are Surprise! Only so-so. Catherine Zeta-Jones is okay, but she's not funny! And isn't that the point of these movies?

By itself, the film is nothing special, but at least it's watchable, hence 6 stars. It disappointed me more than a lot of 6s, though, because it's part of a series. And such, it's just the nature of the beast that movies in a series are compared to each other. This, unfortunately, is not nearly as good as Ocean's Elven or Ocean's Thirteen.

The story isn't great. The stuff about rival robbers I really disliked. One of the things I loved about Ocean's Eleven was the easy, if occasionally tense, camaraderie. And then they throw in the crap about the Night Fox. That was probably the worst part in this movie. I still enjoyed it when they cut back to a simple revenge story, however. This part is well-written and makes the script worth watching.

Ocean's Twelve does have some really, really funny jokes in it, primarily one involving celebrity "mix-ups" and Bruce Willis. These jokes aren't throughout the entire picture. They are more like oases, funny pieces in a sea of middle-of-the-road humor that's cliché and really not that funny.

Brad Pitt was easily the best part of this movie. George Clooney was very good in the previous outing, but he seemed a bit listless in this installment. Bernie Mac's character Frank is a riot, but he, unfortunately has a much smaller part to do something with.

Yes, Buddha may say to take the middle way, but I still prefer the high road. Soderbergh has foregone that path with Ocean's Twelve, a completely average quality movie. Good thing he got back on track with Ocean's Thirteen.

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho was the movie that revolutionized horror forever. This is a must-see for anyone who calls themselves a connoisseur of horror. And while not the scariest film ever, or even in the top tier, it still provides a marvelous psychological aspect, and some genuinely terrifying moments.

Psycho also has one of the most famous horror sequences, and even movie scenes in general. Is there anyone who hasn't heard of the shower scene? This scene is famous for a reason. The eclectic shots, switching so frequently that it almost looks like still frames create an atmosphere of realism. This seems like a newscast, a real event. And that's what is so scary about this movie. It seems completely real, as if these events could happen. Hitchcock caters to the imagination, his brand of fear rooted in emotion, not visuals.

Hitchcock's classic black and white tale of passion and horror was revolutionary for the time, and consequently has spawned a slew of imitators. None of these emit the intensity so easily shown in Hitchcock's Psycho. There has even been a remake, a travesty to the original. In the spirit of honor, the 1998 film with Vince Vaughn should change it's name so it won't be associated with this 1960 gem.

Hitchcock was, and actually still is, a force to be reckoned with in this league. He is a force of nature. New horror movies come and go, and, aside from a very select few, are forgotten in a matter of months. Hitchcock as shown his staying power in the dog eat dog world of horror by creating not one, or two, but countless classics. The greatest of these, though, was unquestionably his little came changer called Psycho.

Steven Soderbergh is the unchallenged lord of comedic dialog (not including Inigo Montoya, but that character has only been in one movie.) Soderbergh has proved this countless times, with everything from this to the Informant!

Generally, his movies contain very little "immature" comedy, which comprises physical comedy, primarily people being hit in the groin or the head. His comedies rely much more heavily on wit and comedic interplay. They are all the better for this fact.

Ocean's Eleven, definitely the smartest and best of the Ocean's movies, may be the best of the Soderbergh collection in general. These actors have the art of banter down to a science, literally. I think some of them may have majored in it in college. The Oceans crew pull off the effect of making this gang of thieves seem like a family, albeit a dysfunctional one. And therein lies the charm. We are so used to wanting to see the criminals locked up in these movies that it's a refreshing change to see the people on the right side of the law, at least on paper, be the fools and bad guys.

These robbers are in it partially for the money, but partially for the thrill of the heist. But these guys aren't necessarily adrenaline junkies or sociopathic criminals. Rather, it's almost like a sport. The thing that makes these criminals of the Vegas underworld so charming, however, is that they aren't out to hurt people, at least in the physical sense. I don't think any of the crew ever carried a gun at any point in the film.

Not only was I empathizing with these criminals, I was laughing, occasionally to the point of tears, along their exploits. Not at their exploits, these guys are the best in the biz, and for good reason. No, I was laughing at the quick one-liners that were so adeptly thrown in there that not a single laugh feels forced, as well as at the general and increasingly imbecilic and barbaric actions if casino owner Terry Benedict.

This has also got to include one of the best casts ever assembled, as well. George Clooney is marvelous. Almost all of his movies are comedies, but he is able to act so serious, dead-pan, throughout, that he is often forgotten to be a comedian, or at least a funny actor, first and foremost. Brad Pitt and Matt Damon are equally fantastic, and Bernie Mac was the funniest he'd been in years. And let's not forgot Don Cheadle. He plays the comedian's role quite nicely. I'd recommend he stick to it, if he wasn't so good in movies like Traitor. And how about that Amazing Yen? Everyone here is so funny in their own unique way that they are incomparable. But that's what makes so good...the cast is so unique, but also grafted together so seamlessly, that is easy to feel that if not all were there, the movie wouldn't be what is. Each piece is of the same importance.

In the end, this may be one of the funniest movies you'll ever see.

It's very possible. It's definitely the best Indiana Jones movie that's been made. This movie actually runs on a path similar to a heart-rate monitor, where there are sudden blips of action interspersed in periods of relative calm. This is a very effective way of running this genre of film, because the sudden action creates a certain tension. There is the possibility of something big lingering. This style has become more and more common place recently, but was revolutionary at the time. In all the years since this style became popular, maybe even revolutionized by Raiders, the Lost Arc still is one of the most effective users of this pacing. Honestly, is there anyone who doesn't think that scene in the cave or that scene with Harrison Ford under the truck among the best action sequences of all time?

The other element that this movie has that so many action movies somehow forgot to include recently is a plot. This genre has recently become a joke, with the extent of the stories going only so far as to allow the maximum amount of explosions and assorted other pieces of eye candy. Raiders of the Lost Arc doesn't include as many explosions (although there are some) as many other films. There is a lot more emphasis on human stunts on feats of inhuman athleticism.

As far as the obligatory love interest for Indiana, Marion Ravenwood is easily my favorite. She's very believable emotionally and almost reminds me of a non-Italian Mona Lisa Vito in My Cousin Vinny. At least in the respect that her emotions toward Indiana fluctuate between intense anger and almost swooning. But not quite, because Marion is one tough chick.

And Harrison Ford much improves anything he touches (although 8I can't speak for his new Extraordinary Measures, which I have no interest in seeing. Brandon Fraser generally ruins everything he touches. But that's a tangent for another time.) Anyway, Ford is fantastic, perhaps the best action movie hero of all time. Not only is he a wonderfully flawed relateable character, he can also be brutal. I guess that just goes with the profession. Or maybe not. Indy is one glorified archaeologist. If only all archaeological digs were this exciting, I guarantee this would be one of the more common professions.

Those are some of the coolest death scenes, too. All I can say is watch out for rotors, and make sure to avert your eyes. And if you want to survive, make sure you have a great theme song.

...Although Im not sure anyone else would enjoy this. I am on my school's newspaper, and we watched this in my journalism class. I thought it was...pretty decent. This movie doesn't have anything found in a typical Hollywood movie, however. There is no violence, there is nothing sexual, and the biggest thing at stake is a job. The characters are never in any physical danger. A movie centering on journalists that would have a much bigger mass appeal is Russel Crowe's State of Play. I think this was also a better written movie.

Still, Shattered Glass is interesting. The story is actually a true one, based on the controversy around a reporter, Stephen Glass, who made up stories and published them in national newspapers. The pace can drag on at times, but that's to be expected, again, because of the complete absence of many Hollywood tent poles.

As far as casting goes, I really enjoyed Peter Sarsgaard in this, but I continue to wonder why Hayden Christensen has ever been cast in movies. All I can say for him is that he isn't as atrocious here as he is many other films. And the story about how bad a journalist really can screw up was interesting, interesting enough to cover Christensen's mediocre performance.

The film is also fairly surrealistic. It is a very psychologically oriented film. This is not to excess, but Glass is not always "present" in his actual life, as he resides in his idealized fantasy. Some of these sequences can add an air of confusion to the atmosphere. There were certain points that left me wondering "What just happened?"

Shattered Glass, just based on it's concept never had even the slightest potential to become a Hollywood blockbuster. This was still a decent, if flawed movie. In the hands of a more capable director, with a better lead actor, though, it still could have been much better. As soon as it ended, I was left with a feeling of slight confusion. After several more minutes of deep reflection I was able to ascertain what had happened. And while I was completely disappointed with the film as a whole, it still left me somewhat underwhelmed.

Why does Bruce Willis have to ruin it? He was doing well with the Sixth Sense and the most recent Die Hard movie. And then came Surrogates. I don't understand how any actor would be willing to sign on to this script when it is such a blatantly awful career move. Stupid middle of the road action movies that do poorly in theaters. That's how to tell an actor is on his way out...just look at John Travolta.

The premise is that people are uncomfortable with themselves, so they make these sexy, idealized bodies that they use in everyday life. The people never move their lazy behinds out of their glorified armchairs. I think this is the beginning of the sowing of the seeds that resulted in the immobile sacks of fat called people in Wall-E.

I know there was something about a murderer involved, too. They even tried to set up as a mystery, too. The mystery aspect was a colossal failure also. I was able to predict the ending and every plot "twist" in the movie. I have since forgotten who the killer even was. The movie leaves so little of an impression that what actually happens isn't important. The only reason this got three stars was that you could say I enjoyed myself. The enjoyment did not come from the movie. It came from the little game called Guess Whats Going to Happen Next. I won.

The characters are not endearing in the least. I found myself half-way through that all the protagonists would somehow be killed off. That at least would have generated an interesting plot twist.

Oh, wait. I forgot. There was something good about the movie. Those were some fantastic ending credits. I don't know, maybe I'm prebiased, but there were more twists, turns, and intrigue in those credits than in the rest of the movie, cumulatively.

...Still a very good movie. I am a firm believer in the fact that M. Night Shyamalan is a fantastic director who has taken on some very, very bad movies. This was one of the last movies he made before he started to go downhill.

While not incredibly scary, this movie still provides a couple jump moments, most of which come in the basement scene.

The story itself is set up very nicely. While it is much more predictable than The Sixth Sense, I still loved the way Shyamalan initiates the story, daring the viewer to come and watch. Those crop circles in the corn are pretty ominous.

And in addition it has Abigail Breslin, whom I've come to the conclusion is the child version of Cate Blanchett-someone who can play any role they're given, and play it well. And she was like five years old when this was being filmed. I hope Breslin stays around for a long time.

And Mel Gibson ain't too bad, himself. Before he got, allegedly, really anti-Semitic, he was a very talented actor. This isn't is best work (I'll reserve that honor for Braveheart), but it is still a decent performance.

The thing I enjoyed most about the movie, though, was not the plot, the characters, or the few and far between scares. It was how real of a family the Hesses seemed to be. They are not romanticized in any way. There is anger and tension, but also love and caring.

With the trajectory of his career going the way it is, I doubt that Shyamalan will ever again reach the heights he did with The Sixth Sense. This leaves to hope that the highest he might be able to go is back up to the level of Signs. And this is a great movie. Maybe after he finishes the Last Airbender, Shyamalan will return to the reason I, and Im sure a lot of others, love him. For the suspense, the intrigue. He tells a good tale. We can only hope he hasn't forgotten how.

The Ring remains to this day one of the creepiest movies I have ever seen. It is not particularly violent, like all those cruddy (and the occasionally decent) slasher film. But honestly, is there anyone who doesn't get a chill running down their spines when they show those dead bodies with the gray skin and hollowed out eyes staring out at nothing. This movie honestly gave me a nightmare the night after I watched it.

And that videotape. With its odd, seemingly random images flashing across the screen. I remember distinctly the falling chair, a ladder leaning against a wall, a tree standing isolated in the middle of an empty feel. These images by themselves wouldn't be able to generate anything remotely resembling fear, but it's not the images. It's the relative calm and oddity of these pictures that leads to a feeling of unrest, a feeling that something more sinister is lurking just out of sight.

This is Gore Verbinski's best movie. Period. I liked all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies a lot, too, but none of them come remotely close to achieving the upper echelons of their respective genres, as the Ring did, at least in my opinion. And honestly,perhaps most terrifying of all...is just seeing-her. With the long dark hair hanging ominously over her face, so no expression is visible.

This movie is relentless. Something is always waiting in the dark, around the next turn. And then just when you think it's over...the movie hits full throttle. The pacing starts off quickly, and just continues to pick up speed. The Ring is the definition of the phrase "Never a dull moment."

This is another movie to watch alone, in the dark, just like Alien. The difference-once Alien is over, you can say the terror was long in the future, on an isolated spaceship. The Ring is here and now. And with nothing stopping her, that cold-hearted terror, it seems just within the realm of possibility that she is coming up behind you now, as you read this, about to strike...

One day recently, Enemy Mine was showing on a local movie station. I hadn't heard of it before, but Dennis Quaid was in it, so I turned it on. After watching about fifteen minutes, I wanted to turn this movie off. I thought it was incredibly stupid, if not the worst movie ever made. Just another 1980s cheesy science fiction movie. I wanted to turn it off, but I couldn't bring myself to touch the button on the remote. I told myself I'd wait for a commercial, knowing full well this was a commercial free airing.

This pattern continued for another fifteen minutes, until I was forced to admit I was actually enjoying myself. This story, so simplistic in nature, was very captivating. The aliens while obviously just men in costume and make-up, as well as flat out annoying with that weird voice thing they did which sounded like a cross between someone laughing and choking, still were likable. And Dennis Quaid is Dennis Quaid. I have come to the conclusion that he is good in basically every role, and great in almost none, excepting maybe Vantage Point.

The story itself is formulaic, providing only a few minor plot twists. It is generally relatively predictable, although this is not to the point where it detracts from the film. This is in essence, a science fictional version of the story that has been around since the first movies were made. Stripped off plot details, this is the movie about an unlikely friendship.

So, while this is not the movie that will change your life, it is a fun film to wind to at the end of a day. It also doesn't require a lot of attention. This is a simple story. It is not from the vein of sci-fi that utilizes major plot twists and odd occurrences. This is not a thinking movie. Nor is it a popcorn film that just tries to dazzle you with special effects. Even for the time, these effects were by no means spectacular.

I still recommend Enemy Mine. This is one of the few times were I am able to gladly say that my initial opinions were wrong. And I'm glad I didn't hit that channel button on the remote, or I would have missed out on an enjoyable two hours.

The answer: everything. This movie has all the elements that make great movies, classic movies. It has believable characters, phenomenal actors, great directing, and that ending. Oh man, that ending. If only M Night Shyamalan always made movies this good. While he still made some very good movies, notably Signs and the Village, he never again reached the height of The Sixth Sense.

One of the things that surprised me most was how good Bruce Willis is. Granted, he was good in Die Hard, but I had pinned him as just an action movie star, not someone who can actually act well. My doubts were all dispelled by this film. And how about Haley Joel Osment? What happened to this kid? This has got to be one of the best child performances I have seen in a movie, bar none.

This movie also has the creep factor, without going over the top. It is chilling, without actually being straight up horror. When young Cole utters that famous line while lying in a hospital bed, it still sends a shiver down my spine. The movie has a certain atmosphere to it that is never broken, from the opening five minutes up through the shocker at the end. This movie is exceptionally dark for a PG-13.

Shyamalan's directing has a fierce relentlessness to it. Even if the rare occasions when not much is happening, there is the constant feeling that something is about to. This is the movie that showed Shyamalan was a genius. I honestly wish he would show this side more often, as opposed to the side that directed Lady in the Water or is directing Avatar: the Last Airbender. That is one movie I know I'm going to miss once it's opens.

If you want a phenomenally well made creepy picture, without having the actual pants scared off you, this is the movie to watch. If you want one of the most well-directed, all- around best movies of all time, look no further. You won't regret it.

Roland Emmerich makes popcorn. That's what all of his movies are. If you go into an Emmerich movie with high expectations, looking for a completely mind bending plot a fully developed characters, you will be disappointed. 2012 is nothing that's going to change the way movies are made. Just go to see a country or two sink under water, as the CGI buildings slowly, or sometimes quickly, sink under.

The plot doesn't really do anything. I know there's something about China in there, with a little bit of a certain updated Bible story thrown in for good measure. (I won't say what, in case I get marked with a spoiler, and I pride myself on spoiler-less reviews.)

The absence of a plot is no surprise. The factor that sets this movie apart from many others of these mindless films, is that it's fun. It's not going to blow your mind, but it's a decent way to spend 2 and a half hours. I enjoyed myself. This is also one of the movies that is enjoyable, and then makes you feel guilty for enjoying it. I know based on what I like in a movie I shouldn't have, in a weird way, liked it. Roland Emmerich has done before, with 10,000 B.C.

My final recommendation: see it with s group of people. I don't know why, but the more people you see it with, the better it seems. Maybe if you plan on just hanging out, expectations won't be as high. Either way, this is a movie to settle in with a bucket of popcorn and just enjoy it for what it is. If you lower your expectations a little, who knows? you may find yourself enjoying it.

This may just be the most bleak and depressing movies I've ever seen. I love it. Not for the fact that it's depressing, but how well made the picture itself is. Director John Hillcoat is extremely faithful to Cormac McCarthy's novel, arguably one of the most bleak and depressing novels ever written.

Although the movie is incredibly dark, dealing with concepts such as death and cannibalism, it is also chock full emotion. These characters, especially the man, played by Viggo Mortenson, tug at the heart. These characters are real, and I am never in any doubt of that fact.

The landscape matches the tone of the movie. Skulls line the sides of the road. Trees stand leafless and forlorn. The fields lie dead and barren with the lifeless hulks of plants cracked and dry. A deserted highway stretches miles across the empty world, with the nothingness only broken by the horizon. No animals stir in the bushes. The buzz of insects is completely gone. The houses are in disrepair, trash and dirt littered throughout. This is what made the movie so great and unforgettable. This paints a picture of a post apocalyptic world in the way so few others have succeeded in making.

Now, granted to call this movie entertaining is completely mis-guided. If this desolation entertains you, something is not right. This is not to say I regret seeing the film. The Road is one of the must see movies of the year. This picture is deeply moving. It left me enjoying the world we have while it lasts, in the way Pandora in the movie Avatar made me long for it's representations of Eden.

Apocalyptic movies are a dime a dozen these days. Movies like Legion and the Book of Eli clutter the multiplexes. It takes a movie like the Road to make someone realize what these movies really should be. Rather than littering the gray landscape with stylized violence, the Road creates a touching image of survival. This picture should have received much more acclaim than it was given. If you can even find it in a theater near you, I can not recommend this more highly.

I will be the first to admit this movie is not for everyone. A story about price fixing in the corn products business. And it's a dark comedy. And it's based on a true story, about a guy (Mark Whitacre) who was a corrupt businessman. Especially in this economy, I can easily see people being amused with this Soderbergh movie.

I on the other hand, found myself entranced, and on occasion laughing out loud at the ludicrousness of the situation in general, as well as the quirks (I use that word kindly) of the main character. These were the moments Soderbergh intended to generate a laugh.

And this is smart comedy. If my memory serves me correctly, there were no instances of people being hit in the groin/face at all in the movie. The closest anything comes to physical comedy is actually mental. Whitacre isn't portrayed as the most stable of people. Some people might find this tasteful dialog stupid or boring. These people just don't get the jokes that are flying far over their heads.

This is, in essence, the story of a man in corporate America digging himself a deeper and continually deeper hole. Personally, I found this movie, as well as the irony of the depicted situation completely engaging, and yes, funny. If you don't, go read a book. Maybe you'll be able to increase your intelligence. Then perhaps you'll finally realize this movie for what is: a pretty darn comedy like few men other than Soderbergh could come up with.

This movie provides one of the scenarios where the credits look better than the movie. When I first saw the trailer, I began to look forward to seeing Sherlock Holmes. I enjoyed the quick-witted dialogue interspersed with seemingly random flairs of action.

If only the movie had been this good. Granted, I didn't hate it either, and I saw after seeing the two best movies of 2009, Avatar and The Road, so my expectations were a little bit higher as well. However, these expectations aren't insurmountable, as long as q movie is successful in what it aims to do. Sherlock Holmes does not accomplish this. At least, not completely.

The best bits of dialogue were already shown in the trailer. Throughout the movie, Robert Downey spoke in a monotonous mumble, that I, as well as the other movie-going sleuths, often had to decipher for ourselves. That's not to say Downey Jr. Was bad. On the contrary, the bittersweet relationship between Holmes and Watson was the most engaging part of the script.

The plot began interestingly enough, but it was bogged down by the plodding sameness of the scenery, and the obvious sequel set-up. By the end, I found myself wondering why Guy Ritchie had chosen to devote so much time into preparing a sequel that he forgot to pay attention to the script that was in front of him.

Without Downey and Law, this movie would have been a total waste of money. As it is, save your money for a movie more worth your time (Avatar, anyone?), and go see Sherlock in a second-run theater, or better yet, as a rental from Blockbuster.