Reviews

This documentary takes a look at Sean Hall and Nathan Butler's ridiculous claim that Swift plagiarized their song, simply by her use of two extremely commonly used phrases in a similar manner to a song they wrote....using the idiotic (non)concept of "cultural appropriation" as a big basis for their claim.

*I* used those phrases before Swift released her hit....and I was an almost-40 white at the time.

Yep, this just helped make their claim even more imbecilic. This documentary trying to give their claim even an ounce of weight was truly just....hilarious.

This was a 100% cash grab by Hall and Butler with absolutely zero legal, or logical, basis. Even suggesting it is anything but is completely idiotic.

As most of us know, this entire series began to lose steam in Season Six of the original series, and it progressively got worse and worse after five years of incredibly good shows.

And everything associated to it has been pretty terrible, too, with "Fear the Walking Dead: to be so torturous, I have been rooting for the Dead since the very first episode and "World Beyond" was just a bore.

I had hopes for this offshoot, but alas, it has proven to be a complete bore as well. Four episode in and barely anything has even happened and, once again, not a single character in it is terribly interesting.

Alas, I finish what I start, so I will watch everything until the entire universe comes to a close, but no doubt, this is yet another epic disappointment.

July 2023: This film is rated, by a few outlets, as the best Horror film of 2023 thus far.

No. No it isn't. Not even remotely.

Although I can appreciate the general concept, which is quite interesting, and the attempted execution, this film is ultimately so very painful to watch.

It may have worked as a short film, but the end result is one hundred minutes of excruciating nothingness that ends with there not actually being any point at all....and there is nothing even remotely frightening, scary or even somewhat unsettling about the film.

It is just an outright bore.

Which, I guess, proves why this film is also seen as the most divisive film of the year so far, as it has been praised by many, leaving just as many scratching their heads and wanting their one hundred minutes back.

I have to agree with many of the other statements made here. I was really looking forward to this film and then I spent the whole film thinking, wow...the Matthew's family must have loads of money to have been able to afford to send Michael up Everest...and then, two decades later, have so much money, Spencer could easily travel to Nepal and pay other people to go trekking for his body. The search must have cost a fortune...

And then, in top of that, so much of the gravitas that could have been in the film was ridiculously edited out, making the blurred bodies a huge distraction of silliness. Whomever thought THAT was a good idea should be fired and never allowed to work in film again.

This film could have been so much more, but it ultimately just came across as a little vapid.

This series is an absolutely amazing look at an actual ascent of the world's tallest peak. As someone who is just fascinated by all things Everest, I really enjoyed this entire series.

However, they made one glaring mistake more than once. The 1996 Everest disaster took the lives of eight people. Eight. This series refers to this disaster more than once and states sixteen people died. It wasn't sixteen.

It was eight.

Only twelve people died during the entire 1996 season...so why they kept stating sixteen died at that one even was quite frustrating.

Other than that, this series really is an extraordinary first-hand look at those who attempt this incredible, and insane, adventure, even if it was from way back in the early 2000s.

I cannot imagine how anyone who knows anything about the story of Dahmer could have possibly enjoyed this film.

Not only is it a complete bore, but it is absurdly fictionalized and sanitized and barely gets any of the actual factual details even remotely correct, rendering it completely pointless.

If I didn't know all the actual details of his story, I would probably have had a really hard time even understanding what was even going on.

The film made no sense as it left out any actual factual information about the man that would render any sort of understanding about what he did and why he did it.

A truly, truly terrible film and a complete waste of time as you don't actual learn anything real from it.

The reviews here are making this film out to be far better than it actually is. Don't get me wrong, technically, it is extremely well done and Phoenix's performance is really quite extraordinary (he is definitely looking at an Oscar nomination), but despite excellent writing, acting and direction....

....the film is kinda boring.

It had its moments, and, sure, it has some very disturbing elements but....If I had a watch, I would have looked at it many times as what this film lacks is...excitement.

The final act is most excellent, but it felt like it took forever to get to it.

Having read through some of the reviews here, it's like the director's ex paid a bunch of people to write terribly things about a film that is actually really good.

The reason I was excited to finally see this film was because of the excellent review I read from actual critics...and they were right.

Despite being a bit like an Israeli version of "Cloverfield," the first-person filmed footage of events of biblical proportions was somehow quite original and highly entertaining. No, the acting is not superb by all, but the weakest of the bunch is the one who is barely onscreen.

But this is a horror movie...who's watching for the acting?

A great find...don't listen to the inexplicably brutal reviews here and ee this gem for yourself.

As a true cinephile, I go to the movies about twice a week, never mind the countless films I watch at home.

I can say, without a doubt or an hesitation, that I cannot begin to understand how anyone is giving this film a favourable review.

I will not give anything away, but first off, this is not, in any way, a "horror" film by any stretch of the imagination. Its slow, meandering (and quite frankly, boring) story continually hints at something bigger.

That something that never actually comes. Leaving you thinking "WTF" when the credits roll.

And they your eyes will.

Honestly, this is a drama that ultimately has no real direction and no point in which nothing actually "happens." It's just a slice of life of a group of people dealing with a deadly virus with no deeper meaning to convey.

So really, don't waste your time. ESPECIALLY if you want a horror film. The only thing horrific about this film is the film itself.

Del Toro officially loses any and all confidence I had in him as a director as he managed to follow up the disastrous "Pacific Rim," easily one of 2013's worst movies, with yet another epic failure.

Even beautiful costumes and Charlie Hunman cannot save how ridiculous this film is.

Not scary in even the most remote sense of the word, no logic in the production design, no real logic in the narrative. Just scene after scene of eye-rolling...and thinking "Doesn't she feel she needs a sweater?" No, it's not a horror film in the least, but it is most certainly horrific.

Disastrous. Juvenile. Insulting.

Three words that perfectly describe the latest offering from Neill Blomkamp, three words that would not have been expected to describe a film directed by this man.

Blomkamp is best known for the absolutely brilliant "District 9," a reflection on apartheid, but also responsible for the almost equally fascinating "Elysium," which was a sci-fi look at the ongoing 1% debate.

So, expectations for his third feature, "Chappie," were understandably considerably high.

However, the expectations are sadly unfounded as this film does not even remotely live up to expectation. In fact, it doesn't live up to anything. At all.

In short, "Chappie" is the story of a "broken" robot from a fleet of robot police now protecting Johannesburg, which gets rebooted by fully self-sufficient artificial intelligence installed by the developer of the police robots, Deon Wilson (Dev Patel, "Slumdog Millionaire"). Having been "kidnapped" by a ridiculous gang of wannabe "gangstas," played absolutely horrifically by members of South African rap group Die Antwoord (Ninja, Yo-Landi Visser), with absolutely no acting ability whatsoever, Chappie, which needs to learn from scratch like a baby, is "raised" by these bumbling idiots to help them pull off a huge heist.

After screwing up a drug deal for Hippo, one of the few worthwhile characters in the film played with brilliant, anarchic, shirtless hotness by Brandon Auret, Ninja and Yolandi owe him $20 million. And they have a week to get it to him.

And thus, this film then wants you to believe, without actually showing you how it is actually accomplished, that this robot named Chappie, in the hands of idiotic, failed gangsters and with limited input from the wasted Dev Patel, could go from zero and baby-like to an almost full-fledged, heist-worthy "adult"…in about a week. Because "gangstas" would have time for this.

All the while, teaching him to "act gangsta," making the film a complete joke while practically verging on racist gansgta clichés…diving head first into a pool of utter ridiculousness.

With its amateur soundtrack, its "gangsta" stupidity, its horrific acting, complete lack of logical narrative and deflection of all its shortcomings through the use of explosions, this film truly caters to the absolute lowest common denominator.

In fact, it expects its audience to be so truly uneducated, when Hippo speaks, the film features English subtitles. Um, Hippo speaks English.

This film was so dumb, and assumed its audience would be so uneducated, they put English subtitles under a guy speaking English. The film, in all its stupidity, actually manages to directly insult the intelligence of its audience.

So, where do big names Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver fit into this? Jackman plays Vincent Moore, a spoiled brat with a horrific haircut who designed a similar type of police robot which was deemed far too big and expensive to be used, so he devises a plan to knock out Wilson's robots so his will be implemented. Weaver merely plays Wilson and Moore's boss at the company which created these droids.

Why they wanted to be involved in this film is beyond me.

So, listen to me when I say, avoid this film at all costs. Unlike the strong, important political messages of his first two films, on his third outing, Blomkamp has achieved absolutely nothing but creating a film that wants to show an audience just what an epic failure looks like.

If Chappie was humanity's last hope, may a god help us all.

and what I mean by that is that this is a film about rich people that is just an embarrassment.

"Jupiter Ascending" is the latest film from the Wachowskis and, despite what you read about their under-rated previous efforts ("Speed Racer," "Cloud Atlas"), this one truly is….utter disaster.

Remember when Hollywood seemed to start putting effects ahead of stories and starting insulting the viewers intelligence until some directors (read: Cameron, Nolan) started injecting mindblowing effects into incredibly intelligent stories.

Well, guess who is insulting our intelligence again.

What this movie is "about," and I use the term loosely, is a young woman in Chicago who cleans toilets for a living who finds out she is actually a genetic descendant of the most powerful dynasty in the universe and simply needs to claim Earth as her own, which she left to herself thousands of years prior, before her "son" harvests humans to make a potion that keeps other beings in the universe young You got that? No? Who cares.

The entire film is completely about special effects and scene after scene that shows elements ripped off directly from any one of the Star Wars films. It is clear the entire film was thought of from the perceptive of "how could we get this cool scene in the film?" with very little focus on a story that is chronologically and logistically ridiculous.

Case in point: Jupiter Jones, played by Mila Kunis, in the span of about 24 hours, finds out that aliens exist, that she is galactic royalty impervious to the sting of bees and survives the most ridiculously unlikely air-chase ever shown on screen without a seat belt….without even batting an eyelash or one moment of hyperventilating. I mean, I think most of us would freak out to actually meet an alien, first and foremost…even a muscular, hot one in the form of Channing Tatum…never mind the rest of what was thrown at her. Yet, she takes it in stride, like it is completely normal.

Absurd.

Truly, the entire narrative rolls out like this…with space, time and basic logic (and gravity) being completely ignored in the development of a story so completely ridiculous, Oscar-front-runner Eddie Redmayne must be crying himself to sleep for accepting to be a part of this and giving such a silly performance. In June 2014, when this film's release was pushed back by almost seven months from July 2014 to February 2015, what they should have done was rewritten the script.

On the upside, the film is visually stunning, and they certainly used 3D technology to their advantage, not to mention that Tatum's extended shirtless scene is, indeed, very entertaining while I don't think I have ever seen Mila Kunis look so beautiful. Unfortunately, she is at her best when she is dressed to the nines as a total rip off of Padmé.

It's official.

Jennifer Aniston has been robbed of an Oscar.

And a Golden Globe and a Screen Actor's Guild Award, for that matter. In a year that gave us an extraordinary array of lead roles for men and an even more extraordinary roles for supporting women, 2014 proved to not offer too many truly memorable roles for leading women.

And with all due respect, as much as I utterly adore this year's award-snagger and Oscar front runner Julianne Moore and think she has been deserving more than once for the little gold guy, it is officially an outrage that Jennifer Aniston did not get an Oscar nomination. Because she should have won.

"Cake" is an utterly heartbreaking yet breathtaking look at the pain of loss, both physical and emotional, and the seemingly impossible task of finding the strength to go on. Or even get up.

Aniston is nothing short of astonishing as Claire Bennett, a woman who has just about lost everything but a slim will to live, a loyal housekeeper, crippling remorse and the ability to find reasons to just barely get through her day through the help of Percocet, wine, arguments and awkward casual sex.

And then she stalks Roy.

The less you know about the film, no doubt the more you will gain, but this study of pain and loss and stumbling upon that one little thing that might just give you a little more strength than you had yesterday is one of the most astounding films of this year or any in recent memory.

Not only will Aniston leave you in awe like she has never done before in the single best role of her career thus far, both Sam Worthington and Adrianna Barrazza are utterly brilliant in their supporting roles and both could easily have garnered nominations in a less competitive year for those categories.

"Cake" didn't just move me…it sunk right into my soul and gave me a better understanding of the human condition of sorrow…the likes of which I hope I never have to experience myself.

St. Vincent…the completely implausible story of a single mom who leaves the care of her only child in the hands of the obnoxious, grumpy, unemployed, hard-drinking old man that she JUST moved in next door to.

So the movie must be ridiculous, right?

Not really. As absurd as the premise may be, the unlikely story of how the man and this kid come to teach each other about the better things in life ends up actually being really quite funny, entertaining and, as much as you'll hate to admit it when it gets you in the end, very emotional.

All of this absurdity is helped in spades by yet another exceptional performance by the Golden-Globe nominated Bill Murray, who has perfected the character of the comedic curmudgeon, practically raising it to an art form while the kid, played by Jaeden Lieberher, is actually point on…a performance that is neither overly kitchy, immature or irritating…which is very impressive for a young actor in such a film.

And then, of course, there is Melissa McCarthy as Oliver's mother, who is, once again, pitch-perfect in her usual role as the sarcastic, strong-yet-vulnerable woman who goes toe-to-toe with Murray's bastard. And does not get lost in his enormous shadow.

All in all, an absolutely excellent film, albeit ridiculous, which is well worth it for the strong performances and funny one-liners…it's got Murray, so just go.

Grade: A

After two utterly fantastic films, The Hunger Games returns with the third installment, which is the first part of the third book of the trilogy.

Got it? Good.

And the film delivers exactly what I expected. And because of this, it is, indeed, the weakest installment thus far.

Why? Well, reread my first sentence. It is the first part of the third book....which means that, from the third book, all the good stuff is going to be in the SECOND part and this whole film is all about ramping up to the (what will most assuredly by) the epic conclusion of this series.

That being said, this film still has many strengths, including Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence as she continues to shine as Katniss, this time as the woman who needs to rise and lead District 13 into a full on rebellion against The Capital while still trying to overcome the mental stress of all she has been through. And, of course, the very odd inclusion of the always great Julianne Moore as the rebellion leader, President Alma Coin.

The groundwork which is set by the film no doubts raises expectations of the final film very high, but I could not also help by feel that there seemed to be things even I missed as I watched this film. As I sat there, taking it all in, I wondered exactly what Effie (Elizabeth Banks) was doing there....it kind of went unexplained. Exactly how much time passed between the last film and this one? And it seemed like a lot of my questions stems from items that were, indeed, somewhat changed from the book. Effie should not be such a prominent character this early on in the final story, but Banks' character proved to simply be too popular to ignore.

That would be the only major downfall of this installment, and that is the lack of clarification of key points brought up in the film. But beyond that, everything else was right on par and I am most certainly looking forward to the final installment hitting theatres next November 20th.

Grade: B

If you cannot imagine how a film about Stephen Hawking could be utterly astounding and heartfelt and touching, don't imagine…and see "Theory of Everything." In short, the incredibly touching back story of Hawking is presented here…less science, more humanity…and it is absolutely beautiful.

However, Redmayne completely steals the show as Mr. Hawking in an utterly pitch-perfect, transformative performance that will most likely nab him his first Oscar nomination…with a win looking pretty darn good as well as he goes from upright man to wheelchair-bound.

Redmayne is mesmerizing.

As is this whole incredibly beautiful film.

I have never been a big fan of Cronenberg because I have found many of his films make no sense at all and are utterly pointless. On occasion, there has been "A History of Violence" or "Eastern Promises," but usually, it's more "Crash" and "Dead Ringers." "Maps to the Stars" did not help me become more of a fan.

Yet another film that made no real sense to me and left me wondering..."WTF did I just watch?" I really hoped this would be a satirical look at Hollywood through the eyes of a Canadian nut job, but instead, what could have been a truly disturbing and great film spiralled into typical Cronenberg incomprehensible ridiculousness.

However, Pattinson? Not so bad here....for reals.

After a year of waiting and hype, "Interstellar" finally hit theatres with....well, not quite a roar. Written as a love letter to his daughter, Nolan's latest sci-fi epic isn't quite as depressing as his usual films, but it's not as monumentally mesmerizing as we have come to expect from the man who brought us "Dark Knight" and "Inception.".

The story is a little cheesy, with mushy questions about love being able to cross time and such, and there are moments that the special effects reminded me of "Clash of the Titans." No, not the remake...the 1981 original. I found that quite shocking and sorta dismaying...and confusing. As confusing as it was at times trying to wrap my brain around the concepts of relative time and black holes and dimensions.

However, the film is ultimately still entertaining, made me verklempt at moments and has a really nice message about the future of our planet being in our own hands and no one else, not even whatever god you might believe in, is going to save us if we don't save ourselves.

Anyone interested in this film already knows the premise by now if they have read this far, so I won't rehash it.

All I will say is that this film could have easily been contrived and cheesy and hokey and clichéd but rather, the end is result is truly one of the finest, most real representations of youth and love I have seen in a long time. And the fact that it seemed so genuine is exactly why I have not cried in a film so much since...."The Perks of Being a Wallflower." Chloe Grace Moretz has already proved she is a force to be reckoned with, but by an accomplishment like playing the key character in a film that was made to be a tearjerker without coming across as completely laughable shows what a strong actress this young woman truly is.

Excellent, relatable script, wonderful direction and perfectly edited, the fact the a bunch of tween girls went "Huh? What? That's the end?" when the credits began to roll proved that R.J. Cutler knew exactly when to end this film at the precise moment. There was no need to overstay the welcome.

Make sure you have some Kleenex.

There is nothing worth speaking of this film except to mention that it is actually even WORSE than critics and it's abysmal box office intake may suggest.

Truly, avoid at all costs....there is not one redeeming feature about this ridiculous excuse of a film and anyone who posted a positive review here should get their sanity tested. Even the two undeserved Oscar nominations it has received should not deceive you...the writing, the acting, the length of the film, just all horrible. Watching this was truly a painful experience.

Then again, seeing as it pairs Johnny Depo and Gore Verbinski, I should not have expected much after the horrific "Pirates of the Caribbean."

There is much to be said about "Zero Dark Thirty," Kathryn Bigelow's cinematic retelling of the hunt and killing of Osama bin Laden, but the most apt term that comes to mind is "overrated." Plot-wise, we all know how it goes and how it ends. War, hunting, research, torture, invasion, death. It covers a very long span in two hours and forty-five minutes and gives a somewhat choppy rendition of the "actual" events that lead to the discovery of where the world's most infamous terrorist was hiding.

I put the term "actual" in quotes because there is much debate as to how much of the film is true. Having seen it with a friend who knows more than the average person when it comes to American military manoeuvres, in my humble opinion, the all so-called "controversy" of the details of the film being somewhat untrue were created to mislead the public into thinking the truth was actually potentially fictitious.

Smart move, US military. Smart move.

That being said, the film is quite entertaining and really enlightening on many aspects of a hunt for a man that took almost a decade to find. Knowing the film was already in production prior to the actual killing of bin Laden, forcing Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal to backtrack and rewrite the entire ending to the film, lends much gravitas to the information being shared. Knowing some military officials' careers were put in jeopardy for revealing too much intel to Boal lends even more weight. That and the fact that I, myself, had my own intel that some details shared were thought to still be deemed "classified." However, the only reason this film is getting so much attention during Awards Season is mainly because it deals with such a climactic moment in American history and not because the film itself is actually any more worthy of an Oscar than any other military/action-like film like, say, "The Avengers." To not nominate it might be seen as "un-American." There is a reason why Bigelow did not get an Oscar nomination for Best Director: the film is simply not even close to being worthy of such a distinction. That being said, Jessica Chastain's highly-lauded performance as the CIA agent simply known as "Maya" who is believed to have been the mastermind behind the discovery of bin Laden's hideout is even more overrated than the film itself. Yet somehow, she is the front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Actress.

Usually an extraordinary talent (most deserving for her nomination for "The Help"), Chastain's cardboard performance is utterly one-dimensional. Her lack of emotion or personality throughout the film made me think the role could have as easily been played by even the most dynamic of actresses, Kristen Stewart (read: sarcasm). As much as I was swept up in learning so much about the efforts that were made to capture this horrific individual, Chastain's performance from beginning to end left me wondering why exactly she would even be considered for an Oscar, never mind being a front-runner.

And alas, there is a good chance the Golden Guy will go to the second-least-deserving of the lot when three of the other performances nominated were actually nothing less than exceptional.

Technical nominations aside, the only truly deserving nominee of the bunch is Mark Boal, whose screenplay is based on intel collected by clearly rigorous research.

Many will be enthralled by this film. However, I highly doubt it will be because of the production value and more so for the information contained in its details. Thankfully, Bigelow has no chance of stealing an Oscar away from a far more deserving nominee for a second time. However, this time, that distinction has a good chance of falling in the hands of Chastain.

I offer two pieces of advice if going to see "The Impossible." 1) Bring Kleenex 2) Bring extra Kleenex.

"The Impossible" is the true story of the Belón family. Mother, father and three children who survived the devastating 2004 Tsunami which ripped apart south-east Asia. There has been some criticism that the film "Hollywoodized" the story by "whitewashing" the family, but clearly, they have not seen the film. The beauty of this story, written by María Belón and turned into a screenplay by Sergio G. Sánchez, may never have been able to be produced had they not been able to bring in big-name stars and get the funding for spectacular special effects, so one must forget the politics and just be truly happy this story made it to the big screen at all in a form which could touch a wide audience.

Naomi Watts plays Maria Bennet who, along with her son Lucas, are separated from her husband, Henry (Ewan McGregor) and her other two sons, Thomas and Simon, after the tsunami hits the resort where they were vacationing. This is the true story of how they miraculously survived and found each other.

And a reminder of the hundreds of thousands that were not as fortunate.

Watts has been nominated for both an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for her riveting performance as Maria, and with reason. The amount of emotion and pain this woman pours into the role makes it easily one of the most heartbreaking of the year. Sadly, she is not a front-runner, but this performance is far more deserving than the woman who is.

And I am not one who is generally terribly impressed by younger performers, but if there was any young actor this year who actually deserves an Oscar nomination, it is Tom Holland in the role of Lucas. The depth and feeling that this kid brings to his role is astonishing for someone of his age. Unlike the other young kid that was nominated this year, Holland actually showed some actual skill in his craft and not just merely being, well, a kid.

This is not to overlook excellent performances as well by an incredible strong McGregor and, yes, the two younger actors that pulled in much of the emotional weight, Samuel Joslin and Oaklee Pendergast.

"The Impossible" is an extraordinary journey of the human spirit. Not always easy to watch, but the devastation and pain is worth experiencing. Through the love of this family and the efforts of the people of Thailand, you are brought into an emotional wave almost as strong as the horrific tsunami itself while it drags you through the heartbreak to the bitter end.

Take my advice, bring extra Kleenex.

To be honest, there is not much to say about "Angels and Demons" in terms of the film itself. Based on the Dan Brown book of the same name, the follow-up to "The DaVinci Code" is a fine action film that throws Robert Langdon back into Italy to solve a very conveniently-put-together mystery concerning the Illuminati to save the Vatican.

The story runs like a locomotive, with great effects and just fine direction from Ron Howard and Tom Hanks' return in the role of Langdon is, as well, just fine. The film sort of runs on autopilot and it's an entertaining ride.

However, the great thing about this film is how it truly does shed a crystal-clear, bright light on how truly ridiculous and corrupt the Catholic church really is. The church apparently didn't have much to say about the film upon its release as they stated it was "harmless entertainment" while the President of the Catholic League stated "Enjoy the movie, but know that it is a fable." Their nonchalant nature spoke volumes.

No doubt, much of what the film shows is based on truth, I have no doubt. As all religions have already been disproved a hundred times over by science, the Catholic church and its corrupt politics and horrifying popes are no doubt worried about that one moment when science actually crosses over and disproves the Bible once and for all with no way of covering everything up again and shoving it into the archives.

So, the film is fine, but the light cast upon the Church is brilliant, and for that, I thank you, Mr. Howard, even if these sorts of lights apparently just continue to merely blind people instead of showing them the truth.

Oscar made me do it. Yep. The only reason I sat through two hours and forty-five minutes of a Tarantino Western was because I knew this film was going to get Oscar nominations and thus, I was obliged to see it. But I hate Westerns and I am not a fan of Tarantino, so I knew this could be a tough ride.

I was partially right.

This long, drawn-out story of slavery revenge most certainly had its moments...the problem is that it takes far too many minutes to get through them all.

The story is simple enough. Jamie Foxx, in an excellent performance, plays Django, a slave separated from his wife and sold off to a plantation two years before the civil war. While being transported, the caravan is intercepted by Dr. King Schultz, played to perfection (again) by the incomparable Christophe Waltz, who knows Django knows what the three men he needs to kill look like, and thus "buys" his freedom. In exchange for helping him track his bounty, Schultz indeed offers Django his freedom. However, when he learns the story of Django being separated from his wife...and sees Django's marksmanship... Shultz offers to help Django find his wife if he helps Shultz kill all the men on his bounty list. With the promise of freedom, money AND his wife, how could Django refuse?

In theory, "Django Unchained" has all the elements of a truly great film...and that says a lot coming from a Western-hating, non-Tarantino fan. The story is great. Foxx is great, but Waltz is utterly fantastic...and will be looking at yet another Oscar nomination. Kerry Washington, as Django's wife Broomhilda, proves that she is not only unequivocally stunning to watch but an absolutely exceptional actress. Hell, even Leonardo Dicaprio, as Broomhilda's owner, turns an excellent performance that is worthy of an Oscar nomination if he so gets it. Need I even mention that Samuel L. Jackson is perfection? And then there's Don Johnson! Yes! Don Johnson!!!

So, pair all these great performances with a great script, loads of violence, two scenes that even made ME squint and squirm, along with beautiful art direction, costumes, cinematography and the controversial overuse of a certain word which actually manages to desensitize you to its utterance, this must be a pretty awesome film, no?

Not entirely.

It lacks one key ingredient: evidence of an EDITOR. With a running time of two hours and forty-five minutes, this film managed to run way too long. I mean, way too long. This film could have easily been tightened up to run at a smoother, quicker pace and shave off at least thirty minutes. But certain scenes seemed to needlessly drag on, leaving a film which has so many good elements but leaves you mindful of the time as you begin to shift in your seat, your buns going numb. Although "Inglorious Basterds," arguably Tarantino's best film, had a scene or two that ran longer than they needed to, I don't remember shifting in my seat nearly as much. What could have been one of the best films of the year merely took far too long to get to the point. But hey, it didn't bore me, so I give Tarantino credit for making potentially the least tedious Western I have ever endured.

I walked into "Texas Chainsaw" with my usual tempered expectation when seeing a horror film. We all know that maybe one out of ten releases nowadays is actually good and scary...if we're lucky. And seeing as this one was dumped on the first Friday of the year, it didn't bode well for great expectations from Lionsgate. However, it was distributed by, well, Lionsgate.

Alas, the umpteenth sequel to the 1974, although based on a great concept, is a fail.

Despite the many follow-up films on the subject, this film is, in a round-about way, a sequel to the 2003 remake of the 1974 original. The original was directed by Tobe Hooper, and Hooper himself helped produce not only this film but the 2003 remake (which inexplicably changed the family name of the murderous family) and the 2006 prequel, but the current film actually uses scenes from the 1974 original (and the original family name of Sawyer) as it's jumping-off point, which gave the film some instant weight for fans of the franchise.

However, the weight was lifted real quick.

In short, right after the events of the original film, some of the residents of the town of Newt, Texas burn down the house where the original massacre occurred with the entire Sawyer clan inside, but not without one baby surviving the inferno. Said baby grows up never knowing what had happened until she randomly receives word that her long lost grandmother has passed on and left her with an inheritance, resulting in the realization that her abusive parents are not her birth parents. She leaves to check out what she has received, but not without some friends coming along (of course)....and picking up the atypical Texas Chainsaw hitchhiker in the process. Needless to say, the inheritance came with something a little bit unusual, carnage sorta ensues and what could have been a great twist is ruined by the sheer implausibility of the execution of the story.

And that is ultimately where the issues with this film lie...in the details. Never mind little stupid things like the fact that the house burning down at the beginning of the film happened on August 19th and somehow, the newspaper which reported the story was also dated August 19th (rather than the 20th). It's the major implausible details like four friends leaving a mansion full of silver to get groceries to be "cleaned up" by a hitchhiker they just picked up or the fact that a rotting corpse is randomly found by Heather Miller, the inheritor, and then never once mentioned again. As the story unfolds, it completely falls apart and you risk missing something unimportant because you are too busy rolling your eyes or wondering how a character went from A to B or from caring to not caring. The story just ended up not making any sense.

Why RnB artist Trey Songz chose this train wreck to launch his acting career is beyond me, but his character is as unoriginal as his music. Other than Songz, the cast is mainly made up by mediocre, little-known television actors not worth mentioning except with the inclusion Shaun Sipos as the hitchhiker and Scott Eastwood (yes, son of Clint who, until recently, went by the name Scott Reeves) as a police officer, both of whom are absolutely excellent eye candy.

So, was I entertained? Well, I wasn't BORED...but this film is definitely a fail in terms of plot and execution and wasn't even so bad it's good. But if you do decide to see it, do not pay extra for 3D if you do not have to but do wait for the end of the credits to get a good grin.