Reviews

"I'm your number one fan" Annie Wilkes tells famed writer Paul Sheldon as he wakes in her home. Annie (Kathy Bates) just rescued Paul (James Caan) from a car wreck, and Paul is told she couldn't get him to a hospital due to the blizzard that caused the crash. What develops is a situation that becomes increasingly suspicious, suspicious in that Annie was somehow there when Paul's car crashed, he is in her home instead of a hospital (his legs are broken), the phone lines are conveniently down, and the roads are conveniently impassable. What also develops is a simple but effective and engrossing, though visually lacking, story of suspense and tension, driven largely in part by the performances of Bates and Caan.

It's probably better that viewers are kept in the dark about Annie's intentions for suspense purposes; this way they can experience everything with Paul. That, and it allows audiences to use their imaginations for a good portion of the movie, an effect that can produce dark, disturbing, and foreboding thoughts about what's coming, further adding to the tense atmosphere of Misery. The whole suspense factor is moreover compounded in several scenes when the stakes are upped, so to speak. A great example is when Paul manages to escape from his room and search the house for a phone, a scene that is spliced with shots of Annie getting closer and closer to her home, eventually reaching the front door as Paul high-tails it back to his room. A multitude of other subtle elements (a few clichéd, unfortunately) add to the movie's suspense, elements like stormy weather (including the obligatory cut to Annie's face as it's illuminated by lightning and accentuated by thunder), close-ups of slowly turning doorknobs, taut pacing, etc.

Director Rob Reiner (This Is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride) adapts the Stephen King novel. Considering that the bulk of the movie takes place in a single bedroom, Reiner does a good job of maintaining interest among audience members. James Caan (The Godfather, Thief) and, especially, Kathy Bates (Titanic, The Waterboy) assist in this endeavor. Caan plays it straight, for the most part. His character could have been a little more scared, a little angrier, or a little more emotional at some points, but at least this gives an even bigger payoff at the times that he is genuinely frightened or enraged (a scene involving a sledge hammer comes to mind). Bates is delightfully bipolar, instantly switching back and forth from sweet and caring to angry and unstable. And yet, she manages to never overact, making her performance that much more convincing and, therefore, disturbing. The police detective and deputy investigating Paul's disappearance play off each other well, too, providing audiences with a whole new spin on the "buddy cop" concept.

The one drawback to the movie, and this is hardly a complaint, is that Misery could have been more visually exciting. Director of Photography Barry Sonnenfeld had just finished the Coen Bros. classic Miller's Crossing prior to working on Misery, and while the former's cinematography was both gritty and beautiful, perfectly fitting the film, Sonnenfeld didn't carry the same quality over to Misery. For instance, while both films feature the grain that comes along with older film stock, it tended to make Miller's Crossing a more memorable film with the visual vibe of an old, hard-boiled noir movie, whereas in Misery it only serves to remind that the film is nearing two decades old. This matter would normally be trivial, but since the movie is mostly limited to the inside of a house, it would have been nice to shake things up visually (see Panic Room).

Nonetheless, Misery makes up for any of its shortcomings and then some. In fact, the cinematography wasn't even bad; it just wasn't as high quality as the rest of the film. And it is a high quality film. It bears a striking resemblance to Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window in that the performances are first-rate, there's plenty of suspense, and there's a guy in a wheelchair with a broken leg. And because it's a damn good movie.

The Golden Compass is a good film adaptation of a great book. Director Chris Weitz does an impressive job combining storytelling with CGI, but I don't think he fully realized the totality of potential that this project had.

The Golden Compass follows the story of young Lyra (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards) on her exploits across the Europe of an alternate reality. Her trip initially starts when Marisa Coulter, played by a delightfully villainous Nicole Kidman, invites her to come to the "North" as an assistant. However, Lyra quickly sees Coulter for what she is and escapes. Eventually, Lyra meets up with a warrior bear voiced by Ian McKellen (more on him later), an "aeronaut cowboy" played by the perfectly-cast Sam Elliot, and a not-so-wicked witch named Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green), and goes on an adventure to stop an atrocity I'll leave for the movie to explain.

Condensing the rather long novel into a movie is impressive, but I would have gone for something more along the lines of a 3-hour epic; The Golden Compass, however, clocks in at only 113 minutes. I've heard that all-CGI movies tend to be shorter just because every frame is expensive to make, and the more frames there are the more you have to pay. While The Golden Compass isn't Toy Story, I'm almost wondering if the extensive amount of CGI was the reason it was so short (although with a $250 million budget, you'd think money wouldn't be an issue...). I say it's short because there was scarcely enough time for the story arc to finish, and furthermore, the amount of story that they included was actually less than I thought it'd be. Needless to say, I didn't think there was enough time for things like character development - all the things that could make a good movie great. Another problem with it's short running time is that a bunch of the stuff I saw in the ads aren't even in the movie. I mean, seeing a clip or two in a trailer that don't make the final cut isn't a big thing, but there were some pretty significant things from the trailer and other ads that weren't in this movie. When it ended and I hadn't seen them, I was like, "WTF? It's over!?!?" It turns out that they cut the ending of the book, even though they had filmed it, because test audiences who were unfamiliar with the story didn't understand what was happening. I really want to emphasize how cheated I feel by this. Since they pretty much omitted the story's climax, there wasn't nearly enough closure, save an inspirational monologue delivered by Lyra meant only to leave audiences on a high note. Also, Daniel Craig, known to many as the new Bond, disappears about a third of the way into the movie and doesn't come back. It's clear that they plan to have a sequel and to have Craig be in the sequel, but Craig's a cool guy, and I would have liked to have seen more of him in this movie.

One of my favorite aspects of the story and the movie is daemons. For those new to The Golden Compass universe, a daemon (pronounced "demon") is a representation of a person's soul. It manifests itself as an animal that mirrors the person's personality. A servant's daemon, for example, would be a dog. Before coming of age, a person's daemon is able to change into any animal, reflecting the not-yet-set personality of a child. To me, daemons are fascinating. They're you, but they're also their own physical entity. They feel your pain. They can talk. And yet, I don't think Weitz handled daemons as well as he could have. It would have been really interesting to learn what daemons are all about, to hear the conversations that they have with their counterparts, to really get into their heads. What we get in the movie fell short of that, I think. Mostly it's just Lyra's daemon, Pan, saying things like "I don't think we should go in there" or "I'm scared." The little bit of insight we get is fascinating, but that's just the problem, it's only a little bit of insight.

Another issue I had was that of violence. Part of the story involves warrior bears. The primary one we get to know is Iorek Byrnison. Iorek is one bad mofo, and we see just how cool he is in a fight to the death with another bear who stole the kingship of the bears from Iorek. If I remember the book correctly, this part had lots of blood and ended with Iorek eating the heart of the other bear. Nothing says "badass" like a blood-drenched warrior bear eating the heart of his slain opponent. But alas, I don't recall there being blood anywhere in the movie and, sadly, no hearts were eaten. I understand that this movie is aimed partially at a young audience, but they could have pushed it a little; as it is, it's pretty tame.

Don't get me wrong, I'm going on about how the movie could have been better, but I'm only explaining what I think would have made the movie something as truly great as the novels. As it is, it's still a good and entertaining movie that's worth the money. I'd recommend it, but just don't have your hopes too high.

7/10

I was excited to see this. I think I heard somewhere that Scorsese called it the best movie of the 90's. I'm not sure whether that's true, but it got me fired up. Other people said good things. It was like post-release hype.

Okay, well, I put this baby in the DVD player and let 'er rip. But, she really didn't rip.

It started out with Caviezel (he's still relatively unknown, unfortunately, even after a bunch of big films) AWOL on an island of indigenous peoples he likes for their innocence. Then a ship comes and picks him up, and Sean Penn yells at him. They have this relationship throughout the movie.

Caviezel doesn't like war, so the writer seemed to figure: "let's have him say poetic-sounding things while we show shots of nature - people will think it's deep." Okay, well, I'd say about an hour of the 2 hour 40 minute movie is dedicated to this voice-over narration. It gets old. Quickly.

The film's story revolves around taking control of a Japanese controlled island in the Pacific. There are some battle scenes that are expertly done. These are definitely the strong points of the movie. I think that if they had focused more on these and done more of a "Black Hawk Down" approach, this would have been a tremendous film. But of course, we had to make it anti-war. Aside from that being pretty clichéd at this point, it wasn't handled all that well. A friend of mine told me that he didn't care for this movie, citing his opinion that "it was boring - war films shouldn't be boring." I'm not saying that it should have to be a blood-filled gore fest of testosterone-inducing violence, I can appreciate slower, thoughtful films, but, with the exception of about 15 minutes of intense battle scenes, this really was just... boring.

The acting was fine. Nolte is definitely a strong point, and Caviezel is fine. Brody isn't given much to do, though, and Travolta has only about 3 minutes of screen time. Clooney has even less.

I suppose that this film is "technically" good, as in acting, cinematography, etc, are all fine, but I think that the issue came in the editing process. They made it way too long , and they focused on all the wrong things. I don't see war films to see shots of nature, I see them because they should be compelling, they should have action, and they should definitely not be boring. Sorry, But I don't think that The Thin Red Line meets these criteria.

It's current 5.7 IMDb rating and mediocre critical reactions left this movie in the back of my mind, but a friend of mine one day told me how Alpha Dog was so great, that he'd be willing to go see it again if I wanted to go. Well, I have yet to turn down a movie. I went, and I liked it immensely.

The movie's best aspect, I felt, was the acting. There was great acting all around. I've never cared much for Timberlake, but he shows here that he can be very talented. Ben Foster and Sharon Stone also stand out, which is an accomplishment because it's hard to be noticed when all the acting is good. But the most kudos go to Anton Yelchin. I've never seen him before, but he out-acted some very big names, including Bruce Willis. I look forward to seeing more from this kid in the future.

All the characters are also very human; we can sympathize with them. You especially feel for Timberlake's character--he's technically one of the bad guys, but he's trying to do the right thing and you so badly want him to (but you'll have to see the movie to find out if he does...). Yelchin also provides a highlight for the most gut-wrenching scene in the film... I had that sick feeling in my stomach, you know, like if you got pulled over or find out something bad has happened to a loved one or whatever. I think that's a real accomplishment, to make the audience care so much.

It's not the most uplifting story ever (think "Harsh Times" or "Lord of War"), but its gripping, and you give a damn about what happens to the people in it. I liked it. I liked it a lot.

Being too young to have been in school in the '50's, I had the privilege of viewing this little gem in US History.

Starting off with a very catchy song about Burt the turtle, "Duck and Cover" describes how ducking and covering will make you safe in a nuclear blast. Needless to say, it's very amusing.

I also liked it just for its '50's vibe (i.e. "Little Timmy knows what to do!"). This combined with the government's reassurance that a nuclear blast is not that big a danger made me utterly love every second of it, however ludicrous it might be.

"Duck and Cover," however, is also an interesting look at government propaganda. Again, very amusing for its not-so-subtle approach in this department.

So if you have some time, check it out. It can be viewed on the internet (http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951), and it's 9 minutes where you can just shake your head and laugh.

So remember children, when you see a flash, DUCK AND COVER!

For your information, this review contains mild spoilers of the film's storyline.

Blood Diamond had a lot of potential. It had opportunities for action, compelling situations, compelling characters, etc, but it didn't seem to fully realize them.

There were plenty of moments of action, but they seemed to always be filmed with a shaky camera and quick cuts. Sure, that might make it seem more like you're there, but it got pretty old pretty fast. The audience began to not know what was going on or where the main characters were or where the bad guys were. This really subtracted from several scenes that could have been very memorable, like a rebel invasion of Sierra Leone's capital city Freetown.

Much of the movie revolved around the rebel forces of the RUF in Sierra Leone, who kidnapped the son of Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou). Solomon is then taken prisoner by the RUF and forced to dig up diamonds. South African smuggler Danny Archer (DiCaprio, now surely one of the best actors, not only of his generation, but in moviedom today) learns of a diamond worth quite a bit of money that Solomon had found, and most of the movie follows Solomon as he searches for his family and Archer as he searches for the diamond. Archer tells Solomon with the money they could make with the diamond, finding his family would be a breeze, so they stick together. Reporter Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) hooks up with the pair upon learning of Archer's connections to conflict diamond corporations and their important people. Wanting to really help the victims of the conflict, Maddy helps Solomon and Archer on their quests so that she can get information on the conflict diamond dealers and take them down.

Solomon's son is forced to fight for the RUF, and becomes a completely desensitized, killing machine. This could have been very, very powerful, but it wasn't quite as heart-wrenching as it could have been. It does, however, provide for a great, gut-wrenching moment of tension later in the film. Solomon himself is played well. Hounsou plays him with a sense of innocence, and we do care about him and his journey to find his family. Connelly, too, is an idealistic journalist who wants to help the world, and we come to believe that her well-intentioned motivations are completely genuine. DiCaprio, as always, is terrific. I'm not completely sure what a South African accent should sound like, but his seemed convincing enough to me. He is a man on a mission, and we believe it. It was especially a treat to see his character develop. The best thing about Archer's development is that, while he goes from being selfish to selfless, it's not unbelievable or clichéd. He doesn't just become a good guy, he convincingly transforms from (a closet racist) anti-hero to hero. All around good and great acting in Blood Diamond.

The end concludes with a political message somewhere along the lines of Lord of War, which kind of killed the mood, but it's certainly nice that the movie is actually about something important (i.e. conflict in Africa that, according to Maddy, we might catch on the news somewhere "between sports and weather").

Blood Diamond is done well, but not quite as well as it could have been. Still, it made for a good movie, one of the better of 2006, and I'm glad I saw it.

8/10

Borat, Borat, Borat.

You will either love this movie, or you'll hate it, but chances are you'll love it. If you're easily offended, you're then likely going to hate it, but you most likely just want to see a funny movie. And Borat is the movie for you! The movie follows Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) as he travels to the US from Kazakhstan in order to learn lessons for his country and make a documentary. But when he discovers Baywatch on TV, and more importantly Pamela Anderson, he sets out on an epic quest from NY to California (where Pearl Harbor and Texas are).

The humor is what happens along the way. He purchases an ice cream truck for the trip, accidentally enters a Jewish-owned Bed and Breakfast (Borat is anti-semetic), consequently holding a cross and his money close as he speaks fearfully into the camera of how the clever, shapeshifting Jews attempted to poison him, and later buys a grizzly bear for protection after the traumatic experience.

He eventually reaches LA to meet his elusive Pamela Anderson, and funniness ensues--I won't go into further specifics.

This is a great movie and an intelligent movie. Don't get turned off thinking it's just stupid humor or just making exploitative comments about Jews for cheap laughs; nay, it goes as far as making a few sly insinuations about our own culture, insinuations we can learn from.

But, it is first and foremost a funny movie. The funniest of the year, though admittedly there have not been that many funny movies... Nonetheless, you will find abundant helpings of humor at this movie. So go, unwind, laugh. Remember, it will make for benefit humor of you.

Whoa. What an experience.

Crisp direction heads this wonderfully written film, with tid bits of humor scattered throughout (and, fortunately, it helps make the movie, rather than subtract from it). Other moments are tense, exhausting, absorbing... Very well-written.

Acting is also top-notch. I could see any one of many actors from The Departed being nominated for an Academy Award. DiCaprio and Nicholson are especially great here, giving some of the best performances of their careers. Gotta mention Wahlburg, too--he's a lot of fun to watch.

Note that the film has quite a bit of profanity and a decent amount of violence. Still, I'd strongly encourage you to not let this deter you. The experience is completely and utterly worth it.

SEE THIS FILM!

I think I had a spot of Snakes on a Plane Syndrome when I saw the trailer for this. It's premise seemed so corny and such a blatantly open excuse to have violence, drugs, sex, etc, it must be good on a stupid level.

Well, some parts were funny; Statham and a Middle-Eastern cab driver have a disagreement, so Statham throws him out of the cab and yells "Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda!" until a group of angry people form an angry mob and Statham slips out of the scene by stealing the cab. Also keep an eye out for Linkin Park's Chester Bennington as an apparent drug abuser.

Mostly, though, it was disappointing. It was pretty corny at times, but not in a way that made it good, like SoaP. Action was lacking, and not very good anyway because scenes were always being butchered by quick cuts, shaky camera, subtitles (what's with subtitles?), etc, etc.

The ending was a bit reminiscent of Vanilla Sky, which I liked, but the end of the end was pretty cheesy. Google also seemed to get in on this project, as one can see at one of numerous times in the film in which a map of the city is layed out with Google written in the corner.

All in all, it wasn't very good, but not bad enough to be good, either. I don't often say this, but save your money on this one; it's not worth it.

M:I 2 is the Citizen Kane of action films.

I've heard a lot of bad-mouthing this movie, so hear me out on why it is good. Why it's great, in fact.

CINEMATOGRAPHY Shots were beautifully colored in this film. Australia was bright and cheery. The Southwest's red land contrasts beautifully with the blue sky. The red-tainted Outback is that much better in the midst of a blood-red sunset. Biocyte's lab is a visual monotone of cool colors, which later pose a stark difference to sparks and explosions. M:I 2 had beautiful cinematography.

PLOT I really don't follow why so many claim the plot is bad. It's certainly not as convoluted as the first, but I think that that's for the better. People speak of plot holes, but I didn't see any (nothing major, anyway). The premise was certainly more intelligent than, say, Die Hard (yippy-kay-yay, let's go kill all the motherfu**ers). It's not Syriana, but hey.

ACTING There seems to be a rule in action movies that actors can't act. Now, performances weren't quite Oscar-worthy here, but this movie was really an exception to that rule. Dougray was menacing, a truly great villain. I don't think Cruise has ever let me down in the acting department. Thandie Newton was GREAT in that she wasn't the female just thrown in for the love story; she was a real person, darnit!, and she had emotions and facial expressions and wasn't just there to have sex! I mean, some have called the acting wooden, but I'll take this over Vin Diesel's monotone expression in xXx any day.

DIRECTION/EDITING Very well done. M:I 2 doesn't suffer from quick cuts like so many other modern action films do. It succeeds brilliantly in its camera-work, allowing us to always understand what's going on, and giving us some very eye-pleasing shots in the process. Scenes inter-cut with each other (Cruise going into Biocyte/Ambrose explaining what he'll do, Cruise in motorcycle chase/Newton on bluff, etc.) were done not only so they wouldn't subtract from each other, but so that they complement each other and give us the bigger picture in a very well-done way.

SCORE Yay for Hans Zimmer! Along with what many deem a genre change (btw, many seem to have a problem with this. I personally don't, and if you do, I'd simply ask you to go along with it. If you still disapprove, well, sorry.), Zimmer changed the theme from a more spyish tune to a much more actionesque theme that perfectly reflected the mood and genre of M:I 2. Also, "Injection," the song played at the end of Biocyte Infiltration when Cruise jumps out of the building, is my favorite action song. It's a beautiful song, with vocals, strings, a drum, and if I'm not mistaken, some synth, too. It's a very "deep" song, perfect for a stylistic action scene that ended up being Biocyte Infiltration. It's doesn't bang you over the head with "I'M HEAVY-METAL ACTION MUSIC!!!" but is a soothing, ear-pleasing piece of art (yes, ART!), that adds emotion when needed, suspense when needed, and complements what is being shown PERFECTLY. Yay for Hans Zimmer.

ACTION (ACTION!) Action is undoubtedly this film's biggest selling point. Some call it over-the-top, and it is, but it's nowhere near as bad as something like xXx. Also, everything shown is, though very improbable, at least possible (you've beaten out a lot of action movies, now, already). On top of that, it was AMAZING! Slo-mo when needed to add stylistic depth to Cruise running through a shot-up corridor towards an anonymous light source of hope as sparks soar through the air; a knife driving down atop Cruise's face, stopping abruptly mere MILLIMETERS from his eye (and, btw, this was done w/ Cruise for real; no special effects); Cruise lifting the rear end of his motorcycle up as a car hood passes underneath it, swinging his pistol around to shoot the gas tank of the previously mentioned car until it blows up and rolls very eye-pleasingly, etc, etc. (Actually, I think myth busters proved you can't blow up a car by shooting its gas tank, so I'll give you that; still, its a very minute detail and worth it for a very insane shot). This action is way up there, giving movies like The Matrix a run for their money.

CONCLUSION M:I 2 is done so well in so many aspects that I really don't feel it should be written off as a stupid, over-the-top action movie. I mean, how many action movies in the following six years can compare in action OR plot? I think you'd run out of films before you'd get to the end of your fingers. Even if you included every action movie before it, I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to find a large number. Certainly, M:I 2 deserves more than its current 5.7 rating.

WOW! The Academy ought to make some new categories for this fine piece of film-making, perhaps categories along the lines of "Best Use of Snakes on a Plane." Seriously, this movie is genius! GENIUS, I SAY!

The premise is as follows. There's a plane, see? And, on this plane, there are snakes. And then, Samuel L. Jackson starts kicking a lot of snake-butt. On the plane. That has snakes. If this doesn't win for best original screenplay (or best picture for that matter), the Academy should be ashamed.

Fine performances given by all. Everyone should win for AT LEAST one of the following: "Best Actor in Leading Role," "Best Actor in Supporting Role," "Best Actress in a Leading Role," and "Best Actress in a Supporting Role." EVERYONE! I'm sure the Academy will fix the loophole only allowing one winner for each to accommodate this Godfather-quality movie.

I think the snakes also deserve special mention. Man, were they intimidating and believable. Those snakes need to recognized by the Academy, too. Each and every one. Especially the python - I even recall him saying in an interview with Aintitcoolnews that he thought this would be the role that would get him recognized by Hollywood. I'm sure it will. It's unfortunate that he's thus far uncredited here on IMDb; I'll be sure to work on that immediately following this review.

All in all, I would rate Snakes on a Plane, on a scale from 1 to 10, about 14...

.....

...million.

SEE IT!

Decidedly, this review is rather spoiler-heavy, fyi.

Aside from M:I 3, this was my most anxiously awaited movie of 2006. I'm a huge Michael Mann fan and loved Collateral, Heat, et al.

The very first scene is somewhat reminiscent of "Club Fever" in 'Collateral.' Yet, it seemed to resonate indifference, as though this cool-looking duo of Farrell and Foxx was enough to make this scene cool and memorable. It wasn't.

This duo gets an upset call from an informant it had previously worked with; he garbles out how he "hadn't given them up" but was "leaving town." Crockett (Farrell) gets it out of him that he ID'd some undercover FBI agents that were in a drug deal going on at that moment for the criminals involved. We are shown the agents gunned down. Mann handles this well, and it proves to be one of the few highlights of the film.

Soon Crockett and Tubbs (Foxx) get put onto this case by the FBI man who headed the original project that just went bad. The reason: there's a mole within the FBI so he needs outsiders to both work the case and find the mole, if possible.

The next 2 hours are mostly Farrell and Foxx looking cool while infiltrating a South American drug organization. It gets a bit monotonous, especially since the two leads tend to keep on indifferent, serious-looking expressions the whole time.

Towards the end of the film we are rewarded for our patience with an exciting and well-done night raid on a trailer with a hostage, but this doesn't quite make up for the rest.

I wasn't sure what to think of the movie while I watched it. I figured it might get worse (and be bad), stay the same (and be mediocre), or shape up (and be awesome). When the gunfight at the end came around, I was hoping I was in for a great grand finale that would make the movie awesome. It started out, and the bank robbery in Heat came to mind. With Heat, though, I think it got progressively more exciting, and we had a good idea of what was going on. Unfortunately, in Miami Vice, this final shootout didn't give the audience a great idea of what was going on. We see a man get shot and wonder: "was it a cop or a bad guy?" Hard to tell. The excitement didn't really build either, at least not until the primary bad guy opposing Crockett and Tubbs comes face to face with his maker, at which point some might feel compelled to stand up and cheer. Still, this feeling is brief and doesn't seem to exist in the rest of M.V.

The plot was pretty convoluted, but we get the overall chain of events and what they mean. Not one of M.V.'s best aspects, but not its worst, either.

I don't want to give the impression that this movie was bad; it definitely wasn't. I just don't think it was all that good, especially considering Mann's presence as writer and director. I also want to mention that the cinematography of this movie is dazzling, from neon-lit nightclubs to beautiful, crimson, sunset skies. This was surely one of the greatest features this movie has to offer, and I'm sure if it wasn't for the Academy's stance on digital film, it would be a clear Oscar-winner for Cinematography.

Overall, I'd say the movie was decent, but definitely not Mann's best work. I was debating between 6 of 10 and 7 of 10, and decided to give Miami Vice the benefit of the doubt largely because of its beautiful cinematography.

7 out of 10

This is a rare action movie that's, well, not your typical action movie. A lot of action movies revolve around some action hero taking out dozens of bad guys and not getting a scratch. They often do this while saving the world, etc. "Behind Enemy Lines" is different in that it's more realistic than, say, any James Bond movie.

"Behind Enemy Lines' follows a naval pilot (Owen Wilson - I'd like to see him in some more serious roles like this one) as he's shot down over Bosnia and forced to run from a local militia that wants him dead. Rather than following a typical, formulaic "kill all the bad guys in cool ways" course, Wilson instead chooses flight over fight for most of the movie, which adds much needed credibility. Sure, there may be a few instances where in all likelihood, one of the many bullets fired at him would find its target, but if you can get over that mentality (and it's way better than most over-the-top action movies in this sense), you should thoroughly enjoy "Behind Enemy Lines."

The movie is shot with a blue filter that gives a sort of cold, unforgiving, warzone vibe that further adds to the experience. Owen Wilson is fantastic in the downed-pilot position, with little touches of dark humor here and there that are appropriate, and other times that are grim and unsettling.

The war-torn landscape adds tons of credibility to the film. Mines, tanks, guns, mass graves, wreckage, destroyed buildings, booby traps... they are all invaluable in setting the scene where our story takes place.

Let us quickly examine the action of "Behind Enemy Lines" before this review comes to a finish. Take "M:I 2," first. We see Tom Cruise killing scores of guys in massive gunfights, flashy hand-to-hand combat, motorcycle/car chases, diving from helicopters, etc (this is your typical action outing). "Behind Enemy Lines," instead, (minor spoilers) shows Owen Wilson's downed-pilot recovering photos taken from his plane of local atrocities (the reason the militia wants him dead), running from gunfire, traveling through minefields (including a road filled with mines on either side with trip-wires connecting them in the center, and our hero is forced to run through this, at one point tripping...), hiding in a mass grave, etc. The action is both spectacular and (mostly) *BELEIVEABLE*, and we could sure use more of that from Hollywood.

This is a great action-drama flick. And guess what? You don't even have to leave your brain at the door! That's worth the price of admission, alone.

I haven't read the book, but I've heard good things. Tom Hanks and Ron Howard seem like a great movie-making combination... I was looking forward to this.

Having not read the book, I wasn't quite sure what to expect; however, from the opening murder in The Louvre, to brief discussions of Christian dogma, to Hanks telling stories about secret societies, I was utterly engrossed. Hanks seems to, as usual, be hypnotizing in his lead role. Audrey Tatou, playing the lead counterpart to Hanks, isn't quite Oscar-worthy here, but she does a pretty decent job. The real scene stealer is Paul Bettany, playing the most engrossing character of the movie, Silas. Jean Reno also lends his talent to the film, though he's not fully utilized.

Ron Howard is undoubtedly one of today's greatest directors, and he works his magic here quite well. Scenes are beautifully shot, pacing is great, and everything related to the director is top-notch. Kudos to Ronny H. here.

I can't comment on the story in comparison to the book, but as a newcomer, it was quite good. The mix of action here, dialogue there, and a theological background all over is quite good. Is it better or worse than the book? I can't say, but if it's worse than the book, I wouldn't imagine it would be by that much.

Perhaps I'm a bit disappointed only because I've been waiting intently since 2000 for the third installment of the Mission: Impossible series, but JJ Abrams's version just doesn't seem to stand out against today's action movies as much as the first two did.

The first stood out not so much as an action movie, but a cool spy movie with a few extremely memorable scenes that will never be forgotten (Cruise on the cable, the Chunnel scene, etc.). It had its own cool vibe going on.

The second was Woo action, and boy howdy, did I love it. Sure, it wasn't the same M:I we were used to, but it worked. There were some real cool action scenes that still exist in my mind as some of my favorites (Biocyte Infiltration, Motorcycle chase, etc.). It had Woo written all over it, and was, in my opinion, the perfect model for what a brainless summer blockbuster should be.

Now comes JJ Abrams's version that seems to be a bit more formulaic. There were definitely some cool action scenes (cars being blown up on a Chesapeake Bay bridge, a helicopter chase through windmills, etc.), but they, for the most part, didn't seem to really be... distinguishable.

And the movie follows in that respect, too. At the moment, it all seemed like an exciting assault of the senses (critics say it like it's a bad thing), but later on, it's rather forgettable. And that's what makes me disappointed.

If you're just out to see a good action movie and nothing more, you should be very pleased with this. However, if you're a die-hard M:I fan like myself, you might find yourself thinking at times that this is just an action movie that has a similar cast to the other M:I films, but not an actual M:I film itself. I guess, for me, it just didn't scream "I AM MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE! I WILL FREAKING ROCK YOU!" as much as it said "Hey, I'm a good action movie, but nothing you haven't already seen." It's fun, but tragically, forgettable.

To quote Roger Ebert, "I hate this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

I think that that sums it up.

However, many would argue that one must explain "why" one dislikes a movie. Well, to be fully honest, I don't believe that this movie even deserves that luxury. However, in the interest of hopefully sparing at least one soul from two or so hours of torture, I will endeavor to perform this unearned action.

The movie was full of really odd, poorly-done segments that didn't fit well together. For instance, Frankie Muniz rides his bicycle into a limo. He then tells the people inside that they hit him, and that they have to give him a ride to school or he'll, well, I guess "tattle" on them. The reason he's going to school is because he completely blew off an assignment that was a huge part of his grade, or something, so the teacher gave him an extension, which he's trying to make. If I'm not mistaken, his project was a story about a liar. However, Muniz leaves the project in the limo, and the man in it happens to be a Hollywood producer who steals this (extremely horrible, almost as bad as this movie) script.

When Muniz tells his family what happened, they don't believe him. So, in an effort to prove that he was telling the truth, he travels to L.A. with his friend (Amanda Bynes: she can be lovable, but movies like this and "She's the Man"... well, I guess I hate hate hate them); well, wouldn't any kid who wanted to prove he wasn't lying to his parents go to such extreme measures, even risking their lives at various points, just to say, "I told you so"? In any event, he's not exactly a well-to-do kid anyway; him doing his work was apparently quite uncommon for him. So why shouldn't he be blamed and get a taste of the real world?

Perhaps I'm taking this a bit seriously, but even relaxed, non-serious movies can still be good without having to resort to, well, I don't know what exactly... I suppose, whatever qualities that made me hate hate hate this movie. Things like kids traveling 1000 miles and risking their lives to prove to their parents that they weren't lying about something relatively trivial.

I like Giamatti, but I have to request that this great actor pick much better films in the future (though it seems he has with "Sideways" and "Cinderella Man"; good for him), because the very notion that a producer would steal, let alone like, the extensively stupid script developed by Muniz's character is so very insulting.

I urge people to not say, "This wasn't meant to be serious... it was just supposed to be a little fun." Well, had the producers, writers, actors, etc, been more serious in working on making it not serious but still good, it might have been a little more fun. But they weren't. And it isn't. It's just a big waste of film and 2 hours of your life.

My use of superlatives is not in any way unnecessary. Humanity as we know it will become dumber (see, this movie already has me getting stupider) after viewing this movie, and if enough people view it, brains will become mush, the stock-market will crash, politicians will unknowingly launch nukes at each other, aliens will exploit this and invade earth, and we will be reduced to the very lowest levels of quality in film-making.

If I can save one person from viewing this film, my life will have been worthwhile. My existence will not have been pointless, and I will die a consoled man knowing that the earth is better for my having been here.

Phone Booth

I don't care much for superlatives, but this is one of the best thrillers ever made, if not "the" best.

The simple plot of a man held hostage in a phone booth by a sniper seems a bit dry in retrospect, but the duo of Colin Farrell and Kiefer Sutherland dazzle the screen with a fiery electricity that burns throughout the film.

Director Joel Schumacher uses bits of flashy camera-work here and there, but in no way does the film try to rely on it. No, the film is fully supported by the engaging dialogue and Oscar-worthy acting. Colin Farrell graces the screen with his finest performance, nearly bringing tears to me at one point. His performance is the best of the film, his career, and in my opinion, of the last several years.

Still, Sutherland works wonders in his seemingly limited role. He doesn't in any way get tied down by not being seen. In fact, it's as though he took the quality from his acting and added it to his dialogue to make some sort of super-hybrid voice. Listening to him is mesmerizing, and Sutherland and Farrell play off each other so extremely well.

Forest Whitaker also provides a solid performance, one of his best. Still, the bulk of the kudos go to Sutherland and (mostly) Farrell; again, this is easily Farrell's best performance, and he gives any other actor in any other movie ever made a run for their money.

If you are a Sutherland fan, a Farrell fan, a thriller fan, I strongly encourage you to see this movie. If you are not.... I still strongly encourage you to see this movie. Be ready for some profanity, but also be ready for a thriller that puts all others to shame.

Where to start......

The Transporter starts out with a spectacular car chase through Monaco. Statham (this is the first film I saw him in; he's now one of my favorite actors) dazzles the screen as the amazing driver of the BMW right from this opening.

I could talk about character development (and there is some on Frank's, Statham's character's, part), acting (and it was decent), et cetera, but in all honesty, that's not what this film is about. This is about having fun, watching some amazing martial arts, and viewing some great driving. Not to say that it totally relies on action (I absolutely loathe xXx for everything it represents), just that the action scenes are simply the highlights of the film.

And that's why this is one of my favorite action films. The martial arts were some of the best I've seen. Though they may not have been all entirely believable (well, this is an action film), they were always at least possible (versus something like The Matrix). And they were great eye-candy. The martial arts also utilized many things that haven't been in past martial arts flicks (ex: fighting in oil, thus much slipping around, etc). Basically, action = good.

The action direction that Corey Yuen contributes gives John Woo a run for his money. The cinematography seemed to always provide a clean, crisp French Riviera sunshine that gave a vibe of energy and excitement (and aesthetic appeal). Fight scenes were never hard to follow, and always fun to watch. Car chases were beautiful. I don't know if I've said it yet, but this is a great action film! It's never too over-the-top, and it's not totally non-stop action, so the action that is provided is boosted that much more. A must-see for action-buffs, Statham fans, or Shi Qu fans, this is one of the most recent cult films I know of.