Reviews

I am well aware that this movie is based on an 80's cartoon show, and a series of toys, but shouldn't the live action version evolve from it's predecessor? According to the director Steven Sommers, the answer is no. "G.I Joe: Rise of Cobra" is still a cartoon in terms of style, pacing and tone. The once animated characters are brought to life by stiff actors who still portray cartoon characters. There is non stop action, some of it is well made, and much of it is loaded with CGI effects that belong on a Playstation 2 game.

The screenplay is made up on the fly, with predictable twists, the most basic exposition ever written, and dialog that mainly consists of bad one liners; these lines are so cheesy even Arnold Schwarzenegger would have too much pride and integrity to say them.

The villain is named McCullen (or Destro to the fans). He's played with lackadaisical effort by Christopher Eccleston. McCullen comes from a long line of arms dealers who have history of selling to both sides during a conflict. In the opening scene McCullen demonstrates a missile weapon that can ceaselessly destroy entire cities with deadly nano technology. He is not selling these weapons to terrorists, he is actually selling them to our own American military, who hypocritically buy these weapons of mass destruction.

It cost billions of dollars just to produce four of these weapons (which resemble green Nerf footballs) so of course they are safely shipped and protected by two lightly armed soldiers in a hummer (not a plane), driving through the woods at night. The real life terrorists wish the real military was this stupid. The bad guys show up and attempt to steal the weapon, until the good guys show up and stop them. The good guys (for reasons never explained) are known as G.I Joe. The two soldiers, Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayons), are recruited into the organization that is so secret, if a member reveals his real name he is booted off of the team, even though all it takes to become a G.I Joe is less than a day of testing and training. Like I said earlier, the terrorists only wish the real military was this stupid.

But it turns out that McCullen sent the bad guys to steal the weapons from the military that he sold them to in the first place. Why would he do such a thing? He wants to sell the weapon to the army and the terrorists. But such a weapon is so expensive he can only produce four of them, so he has to spend even more time, money, and man power just to steal the weapon back. And it appears that money is his only motivation. He even tells his top scientist that after his plans succeed he will be able to finance all of his research. But they clearly state that McCullen's company has produced almost all of the weapons technology on the planet. That would make McCullen trillions of dollars in profits. And did I mention that the enemy base is located in an underwater city? This base is so elaborate and complex it makes the city from "Bioshock" look like an aquarium. Once you can afford to build and operate an underwater city, money is no issue, even in this economy.

And the underwater city is just one of the dozens of gadgets that upstage the humans. The movie becomes a two hour commercial for "Hasbro" toys, the US military, and "The Sharper Image". Since there are no characters to care about the props have to take center stage. But even the props upstage the props. It's impossible to care about a nano missile after you see the bad guys use a flying saucer type device to steal it. It's impossible to care about accelerator suits when you've seen a cloaking a suit, drills that can travel all across the world underground, and nano technology that turns average goons into invincible supermen. The movie becomes an any thing goes type of movie. If the Joe's needed a rocket that could fly to mars i'm sure they would have it.

The action is non stop, and it's slightly satisfying, but it's impossible to care about any of it when the people involved can not die or be injured. They are constantly shot at, blown up, slashed, stabbed, beaten, and fall from deadly heights only to suffer minor scratches in the process. Flashbacks are shown to flesh out the characters, but even the flashbacks are just an excuse to show more action. With such cheesy acting and dialog I welcome things blowing up. There are few action scenes without CGI, and with such an expensive production you would expect the CGI effects to dazzle; most of the effects shots resembled the toys I assume Hasbro hoped to sell. Product placement at its finest.

For a film that used the phrase: "knowing is half the battle", I found it unapologetically moronic. The only battle waged was against my own brain. One half of my grey matter said: "stop noticing the flaws and like this movie!", but that half wasn't strong enough to overtake the critical side that hated this movie from the very beginning. To be fair it's not the worst action movie of this summer by any means. It's not as plot less as "Terminator Salvation", and it's not as offensive as "Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen". It's only crime is being stupid, so stupid that it may de-evolve mankind into monkeys, just like that weapon from "Super Mario Bros.". If a theater of monkeys could see this movie the chimppocalypse would soon begin.

The sixth Harry Potter film, "Half-Blood Prince", is very well crafted but it serves no purpose besides setting up a sequel. If you desire plot, strong character development, climactic action you're a year too early. For all the wasted time and effort that went in to "Half-Blood Prince" I can only hope that "Deathly Hollows" is the next "Citizen Kane".

The film opens with the evil death eaters attacking the muggle world, terrifying mankind and even destroying a bridge, which is pointless because this entire film takes place in the magic world, and for once the magic world is the less interesting of the two.

The non muggle characters mope around the magical land as if impending doom isn't on its way. They moan and whine over their various relationship problems while the villains Snape and Malfoy (Snape has vowed to protect) plot nefarious evil deeds off screen.

The most annoying characters are Ron and Hermione. The mutual crushes they share for one another would be too sappy for a show on Nickelodeon. Here it's just laughable. I think at this point Ron is old enough to throw Hermione on a bad and make love to her. Why they act like children on the playground is a mystery.

For 150 minutes the heroes Harry and Dumbledore babble on and on while the villains do bad things off camera. Voldermort is only spoken of and never seen. Voldermort's old mentor Slughorn is brought to Hogwarts, so Dumbledoore and Harry can attempt to pry secrets from him. That's about all this film has to with its master villain or its hero Harry Potter.

There is a climax, and a tragic ending, but as tragic as it is the film can't use that to elicit any emotion. Harry Potter fans know that the proper scene to end this film was in the book and left out of the film for some reason. Many scenes and sub plots were left out of this film, but it's hard to imagine they were less interesting than what actually made it into the film.

There's a touching scene early in this film where Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings) have just met and kissed for the first time. They sit in Nicks car and exchange glances that tell us love has just blossomed. This happens 15 minutes into the film and I felt that it should have just ended right there.

I'm not saying this is a terrible movie, but it's a waste of time. You go into any romantic comedy expecting the leading man and woman to fall in love by the end, but in this film they fall in love very early, yet they don't ride off into the sunset right away. That's because the plot keeps putting them together, then breaking them up, and then putting them back together again until the credits finally roll.

Nick is grieving over being cheated on and dumped by his ex girl friend Tris, who for unclear reasons is friends with Norah, who she constantly insults only to boost her own insecurity. Norah gets even by making out with Nick, unaware that he's Tris's ex boy friend. This kick stars the romantic plot which is on auto pilot from the start.

While running around New York City Norah runs into her ex boy friend Tal, who dated her because her father is a powerful music producer. Why anyone would like Tal is a mystery. He's the clichéd jerk character who only exists to be hated.

Will Nick and Norah fall in love, or will they retreat back to their cruel and unlikable exes? When you know how its going to end there isn't much reason to care.

The script struggles to develop a strong sub plot go along with the mediocre romance. One attempt at one is the search for Norah's friend Caroline, who gets sloppy drunk and stumbles all around New York city without getting mugged or sexually assaulted. How she manages to do that could be it's own movie.

The other sub plot is the search for a secret concert for a band called "Where's Fluffy". A secret concert is probably the worst idea in the history of music. The only way to reach the location of the concert is to find instructions scribbled on a bathroom stall. If a miraculous Beatles reunion was being held at a secret location I doubt anyone would make it.

The gorgeous actress Kat Dennings and Micheal Cera build minimal chemistry, but it's tiring to see these two easily playing to the usual types they always play: Cera is the sensitive, likable guy, and Dennings is the slightly bitchy sarcastic smart girl. It works for them now but they should learn that nothing great has ever been achieved by playing it safe. I also hated how their characters bond over their connection to music, which they talk about in nearly every scene, but you never get to hear it. It's like porn without seeing sex.

Maybe this experience is funny you may be asking? Well the big recurring joke involves piece of gum that travels from mouth to mouth, gets covered in mucus, falls down into a vomit filled toilet, and finds its way back into various peoples mouths. Hilarious right?

After "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cloverfield" comes "Rec", another horrifying experience in the "fly on the wall" style of photography, and one the best zombie movies I've ever seen.

A late night reporter and her camera man interview the local fire squad during a boring and uneventful night. When a distress call is made the reporter follows the fire fighters into an apartment building where an old woman is reported to be trapped inside.

They get to the apartment and find the old woman screaming like a banshee and covered in blood. When they realize this woman is actually a zombie, it's too late. She attacks and bites a cop. According to the rules of zombies, once you get bitten by a zombie you become a zombie.

To stop the approaching zombie outbreak the police quarantine the entire building and trap everyone in a zip lock bag making the people are free lunch for the rising zombie population. The reporter and her cameraman were also trapped inside of the zip lock bag. While looking for an escape they attempt to shoot as much footage as possible without getting ripped to pieces. Determined to tell their story the camera never goes off even when common sense says: "drop the camera and run!" This is the set up for the rest of the film, which is relentless with gritty realism, human agony, nail biting suspense, and most importantly terror. Each scare is perfectly timed. The film uses the time in between jump scares as distraction to keep you off guard for the next scare. Unlike most American horror films you see, the film earns the scares and never telegraphs them in advance.

Rec hails from Spain which is why it takes you places an American film would never go. The two directors Paco Plaza and Jaume Balagueró knew exactly how they were going to make this film and they never strayed from their vision. Every shot is seen from the vantage of Pablo the camera mans camera. This technique works in every single shot, but it works to perfection during the climax of the film which is shot in night vision, a sequence that blows the similar climax from "Silence Of The Lambs" clean out of the water, and Rec easily blows just about any zombie film out of the water.

If you figured the zombie movie was all but dead, you haven't seen this master work of the genre. The actors are so convincing as normal people you will never suspect that they are real actors. The image of the last zombie seen in the film is something made of a real actor, and special effects, I'm not quite sure which it's more of but I know that it will be visiting me in my nightmares.

Rec is minimal on plot, but much like the photography it only tells you what you need to know, that's why the film is only 78 minutes long. I'll take a good 78 minutes over a mediocre 90 any day.

Another movie lover named Confused Matthew (you may have heard of him) said something totally on point about "POTC 3: At Worlds End". He said that there was no excuse for the film makers to make such a bad sequel when they had all the time, the star power, and the resources to make it good. The same can be said for Terminator: Salvation, an unholy mess of a sequel that begs for James Cameron's help throughout every unwritten, audience insulting minute of it's run time.

Like At Worlds End, the producers, director McG and his screen writers had plenty of time, money and star power to make a tolerable film. But the difference is, they had even more money and more time (six years to be exact). That's enough time to write an entire library of scripts, and it's apparent that they struggled to scribble just one. I imagine it was written with crayons on a napkin moments before being submitted.

The plot is so absent you might as well be watching a documentary on how the film was made, that might be more entertaining. A guy gets executed in 2003, and wakes up in the apocalyptic future, where humanity battles evil robots. He wanders around wondering what the heck is going on, runs into a few resistance fighters, and then John Connor. There is the plot. I couldn't even write a spoiler if I wanted to.

The guy that walks around a lot has a big secret that some evil executive decided to put in the trailer. I guess he forgot that the whole movie is built around the twist. The lesson here future film makers is that you never build a movie around a secret.

After making it pretty clear that there is no plot, the last few minutes are spent trying to make up a plot at the last minute. Like I said before, SIX YEARS TO WRITE ONE. Being a long, plot less, unwritten movie is one thing, but treating the audience like they're stupid is another. This movie earns a spot in action movie hell.

The saving grace is the production values, the CGI robot effects, and one awesome chase scene. If only these things were in a better movie. If only the wasted 200 million dollar budget bought something useful instead of this film, like unemployment checks. Maybe a few of them should go to the producers of this disaster because they're going to need it soon.

Great super hero films only come around as often as Hailey's Comet. That means last year was miraculous: two great super hero films in the same year. 2009 will not be so lucky. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" has come to fill the void between "The Dark Knight" and the next great super hero picture.

To put it simply: it gets it wrong, very, very wrong. It has a hero with no physical or emotional vulnerability. It has plenty of action with nothing at stake and violence with no consequence. And the very goal of this origin story is to build a character, and it can't even do that right.

The story is about the beginnings of Wolverine. At first he's just a boy named James Howlett living in 19th century Canada with his brother Victor. James witnesses the murder of his father and kills the attacker, only to learn the attacker is his real father. James and Victor dash into the woods, and through the magic of editing we leap into the future, where James and Victor become Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber. They fight in nearly every major American war, they join the special weapon X program, and turn against one another when Victor murders the love of James's life. This leads James to be injected with adamantium, making him invincible, change his name to Wolverine, and seek revenge against his brother.

And throughout all of this Hugh Jackman doesn't do much besides smirk, snarl, growl, say bub a few times and scream. He does a lot of screaming. There are long action sequences where Wolverine just stands around while other mutants do the fighting. Liev Schreiber attempts to inject some personality into his role but he's a lost cause in a film like this.

About those other mutants, there are a lot of them. Most of them are unnecessarily jammed into the story to make the fans happy. There's agent Zero who doesn't seem to have any specific power, just a lot of them. There's the blob, an obese boxer who looks like a combination between fat bastard and Billy idol. Ryan Reynolds is dead pool, aka "the merc with the mouth", who's one-liners provide the films only humor. We see him later on with his mouth sewn shut. And Cyclops shows up late in the film, just to show up.

The most insulting of all is Gambit, my personal favorite X-Man. His only purpose is to take Wolverine from point A to point B in his air plane. Taylor Kirsch is terribly miscast, and extremely bland. His Cajun accent flickers on and off. His power is having a magical stick that provides an over kill of mediocre special effects.

And despite an onslaught of special effects, none of them impress. It never seems as if this was a 100 million dollar film, even though the budget was 150 million dollars. I would have guessed 60 million. The effects lack the polish and level of detail you would expect from such a project. There's a scene where Wolverines claws are so poorly rendered they look hand drawn. There's a scene where an entire barn is engulfed in an explosion and Wolverine emerges from it without a single singe of his hair or clothes, while riding on top of a gasoline powered motorcycle that isn't so much as scratched. There are major editing mistakes to go along with the effects. There is a scene where Wolverine walks far away from a building only to reappear in it a split second later.

To be fair I've seen worse. This inst a terrible film, but its bad in the sense that I can't say any thing positive about it. There is no point in watching it. It takes two hours just to tell you something you already know, and to tell you things you would never want to know, like the cause of Wolverines amnesia. It's just a complete waste of time and money, the time and money it took to make it and the time and money it takes to watch it.

This film was directed by the formerly independent Gavin Hood, who's film "Tsotsi" won an Oscar for best foreign language film. This film was a modest hit so don't expect Tsotsi 2 any time soon.

1992 was quite a year, or I imagine it must have been. I was only five years old. I do recall voting for Bill Clinton during our elementary school election. Clint Eastwoods western UNFORGIVEN won best picture at the Academy awards. THE CRYING GAME won best original screenplay Oscar for Neil Jordan. A lot of hype was built around a shocking twist that would not have existed the internet was more accessible. In retrospect it was pretty obvious and the movie built around that shocking twist doesn't quite work.

A British named Jody soldier falls victim to the seduction of an undercover IRA agent. Her associates kidnap him at a carnival and hold him hostage. Jody befriends Fergus, the only one of the group that isn't completely merciless. Jody escapes and gets run over by a tank when British soldiers arrive and obliterate the IRA agents. Fergus survives and goes to England where he meets Jody's girl friend Dil, and falls in love with her. Fergus hides the secret of his past and his connection to Dil's former lover while Dil hides a big secret from him.

A big portion of the movie revolves around a twist. If you know anything about movies you know what it is. In this internet age nothing is unknown. If you have two function eyes you can figure it out. I wont ruin that twist. There may be someone out there who doesn't know it.

Most of the movie is devoted the love story. I never felt a chemistry between Fergus and Dil. Dil is not a character I rooted for. I didn't think Dil was very interesting. Her obvious secret once uncovered makes her quite boring. The surviving IRA agents come back and find Fergus in England. This should have added a little juice to the story, but it didn't. I never found a reason to care about the story.

The performances are solid all around, not counting Stephen Rea as Fergus. His performance felt lazy. Oscar winner Forrest Whitaker is sensational although he only appears in the first act. The Jody character has a habit of staying with you even after he's gone. The best performance comes from the actor playing Dil. I can see why the big secret stayed so secret: it was because the performance was so convincing.

I personally hate twist endings. Most of the time there only done for shock value. This movie was one of those times. It was totally unnecessary and served very little purpose. Outside of the big twist the movie is not that great.

When I was a kid I went on the "Honey I Shrunk The Kids!" ride at Disney world. It was in 3d, and it freaked me out. I distinctly remember propeller blades being inches from my eyes, or at least it looked that way. Effects were use to make you feel like rats were crawling under your feet or the room was on fire, and something was always an inch away from your eyes. That's what 3d is about. "My Bloody Valentine" should have had those things.

Watching this movie is more like reading a comic book in 3d. I read a few of those as a kid. They were nothing special. The effects do work at times. In almost any shot you get a real sense of three dimensions. It's almost like being in the movie. You can clearly the see how far away one character is standing from another character. In the background you can see the distance between certain objects such as a tree or a car. I went into this movie expecting things to fly at my face. That's why 3d movies are great. There are a few effects like that involving a pick axe, an eye ball, and a tree branch, but not enough of them.

Would this be a good movie in 2d? Not at all. In 2d, it belongs on the shelf at your local Blockbuster. It's a standard slasher film structured like a "whodunit" murder mystery that you cant figure out because the script constantly throws red herrings at you. The final revelation and the lame ending that follows is sure to have the audience throwing their glasses at the screen.

Most of the scenes involve uninteresting characters going on about the typical small town drama, then a guy dressed like a miner tears them to pieces with a pick axe and removes there hearts. And that choice of weaponry is just as boring and lame as a knife. If I was making a horror movie I'd give the killer an AK-47. Did guns stop being scary? At the end there is one great special effect that combines computers and 3d like magic. A bullet flies out of a gun and hits its target. It's predictable and clichéd but it's the only good effect in the movie. Plenty of guns are fired. Why did they wait until the last minute to use this effect? Why was this movie made? It's sad that a major studio would take an obscure slasher film from 1981, remake it with no respect for the source material, and slap lame 3d effects on it. The laziness applied to this project it's perfectly parallel to the downfall of the horror genre as a whole. The bait of a 3d experience will lure people into seeing this movie and I hope they realize that a bad movie is no better in 3d.

It's no secret that professional wrestling is fake, but that's only to a certain extent. It's staged, which means the events in the ring are plotted out in advance. Chairs are smashed across faces, three hundred pound men leap from twenty feet in the air, weapons come from under the mat, and the wrestlers involved never take any permanent damage. Despite the obvious truth about the sport you would never tell a pro wrestler what he does is fake. That's because sport is played by real people who put their lives on the line for their sport. "The Wrestler" is all about stripping the illusion away from the sport and showing us a wrestler named Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a wrestler ten years past his prime. Randy attempts to keep his glory days of the 80's alive, even at the risk of his own life. Thanks to the script by Robert D. Seigel, the direction of Darren Aronofsky, and the incredible performance of Mickey Rourke, the wrestler becomes so realistic it could be mistaken for a documentary.

Inside the ring Randy is well respected and admired. The younger wrestlers look up to him, seek his advice and encouragement. Outside the ring reality bites: Randy lives in a trailer park and works at a small grocery store to support him. In once scene is rent is late and he is forced to sleep in his trailer. What led him to that point isn't clearly explained but you can figure it out. A many years of self destructive behavior have left his body damaged, along with most of his relationships. We seem him buying steroids before a match. in another scene he abuses cocaine. This leads to a near fatal heart attack that takes him out of wrestling for good.

While out of the game he tries to mend broken fences. He has a daughter he's doesn't know very well. She's grown up to be a lesbian. He does his best to slowly work his way back into her life. His love interest is an aging stripper played by Marissa Tomei. She's also past her prime. She roams the strip club offering lap dances and getting denied numerous times. Who in their right mind would turn down Marissa Tomei? The wrestling scenes are fare more entertaining and insightful then anything in the WWE. Randy hides a razor blade in his pads just so he can make himself bleed at the appropriate moment. There's a brutal match involving glass, nails, barbed wire and a staple gun. Randy and the Necro Butcher (a real life wrestler) puncture each other's skin with a staple gun, and the staples are real. After the match the paramedics pull the staples out.

Without the performance of Mickey Rourke "The Wrestler" would not be as authentic as it is. Prior to his role in this film, Rourke had become a joke, a parody of himself. A former pretty boy actor who destroyed his face during his short lived boxing career (I guess he wasn't very good) and tried to fix it with plastic surgery. It was not a very good combination, and it becomes painfully clear in this movie. But the magic forces of life gave the fallen actor a break when Aronofsky told the producers that he didn't want Nicholas Cage, he wanted Mickey. I can't credit him enough for kicking Cage to the curb: A fine actor but not right for the part. Mickey was born to play Randy "The Ram" Robinson. He became Randy so convincingly because he is Randy. His performance is dripping with so much authenticity it's hard to tell where Mickey begins and Randy ends. It's the comeback of a lifetime.

The Academy nominated him for best actor, an award he deserves to win. He will win it. While he faces tough competition the other four actors are just playing dress up compared to the performance Mickey displays. Nothing about it feels forced, or fake. You believe he's the character from the first shot and all the way into the last. Marissa Tomei was also nominated for best supporting actress. She also deserved the nod, but not the victory. Why didn't Aronofksy, or Seigel get nominated? Without the realistic writing, and focused direction those two performances would never be. And "The Wrestler" as a whole is easily the best movie of 2008. You can't convince everybody, especially the stiffs at the Academy. How ironic that two excellent movies about men in outrageous costumes got snubbed this year….I think you know what the other movie is.

"Frost/Nixon" could be thought of as a heavy weight boxing match: A political version of Tyson's loss to Buster Douglas. Both Nixon and Frost enter the fight for personal reasons, Nixon attempts to repair his shattered post Watergate image, and Frost attempts to make a name for him self. While "Frost/Nixon" is being sold as an intense political thriller, it's no more dramatic then the interviews it's based on. It recreates them with astonishing accuracy. That's not saying the movie isn't good. It's fascinating, but far from nail biting.

"Frost/Nixon" is an actor's movie. Ron Howard places the camera on his two stars, Michael Sheen and Frank Langella and lets them go at it. Langella's performance is transcendent. Not knowing what Langella looks like helps the experience. At first his slouching posture and thick Nixon accent become distracting. After being absorbed into the movie I was convinced that he really was Nixon.

Michael Sheen doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. He was great as Tony Blair, supporting Hellen Mirren to an Oscar victory. This time he's supported Langella to a best actor nomination. Maybe Sheen will be considered sooner or later. Sometimes it takes two or three snubs to finally get the Academy's approval.

Neither Frost nor Nixon know what they're getting into. Frost doesn't expects Nixon's bullying tactics. Nixon throws him off only seconds before the interview shoots by commenting on his shoes and asking him personal questions about his sex life. Nixon doesn't expect Frost to fight back. At first Nixon is dominant until the final moments of the interview, where Frost grows a spine and drills Nixon with the tough questions everyone in the world wanted to ask Nixon.

Ron Howard made this film based on a fantasy of what any one would want to do to Bush: ask him the tough questions he would never want to answer. While Bush may have been the worst president of our time, even he is smart enough not to fall into a trap set by a blood thirsty journalist. Did you see the last television appearances the 43rd president made? He lied as if he wasn't there. If Frost/Bush were made I would gladly see it, but as I said before, that's just a fantasy.

Seeing "The Dark Knight" for the first time took me back to my childhood. That magical time when you could get excited about something. Imagine this: 8:00 PM on July 18th 2008, a theater full of people, full to the point where some people sat on the floor. The curtain falls. The Batman logo appears on screen and the room goes silent for almost an entire two and a half hours, except for a few laughs and gasps. It ends with the loudest applause ever heard in a theater with a hundred people. That's the power an epic has. What is an epic? It's a movie that sets out to be the greatest of all time and comes close. "The Dark Knight" comes dangerously close.

At the end of "Batman Begins" Commissioner Gordon warns Batman about his impact on crime. The harder he fights crime the harder the criminals will fight him. "The Dark Knight" takes this idea to the next level. Enter the Joker, a run of the mill thug who steals millions from Gotham's top criminals, insults them, and then offers his services to exterminate Batman. The Joker manipulates the fears of Gotham city and publicly asks The Batman to reveal his identity to prevent the Joker from killing innocent people. This makes Bruce Wayne question if has the inner strength to face a villain as sadistic as the Joker. Alfred tells him that Batman because Batman is incorruptible he must make the choices no one else can. He has to be the one to stand up to the Joker. But Bruce Wayne is not as strong. Many times he contemplates giving up on his quest. This Bruce Wayne is the most layered and interesting of all the Bruce Wayne's.

Gotham has a new district attorney: Harvey Dent. He's a hero that the people need. A man working within the law. A man not hidden beneath a mask. He's the opposite, always out in the open no matter what criminal threatens him. Dent, Commissioner Gordon, and Batman team up to put crime away for good. The Joker challenges them and forces each of them to make hard choices that will have a devastating impact on their lives no matter what they choose to do.

That's what the Dark Knight is about. Heroism. What it truly means to be a hero and the consequences it brings. The hard choices that normal people can not make, and the results those choices bring. Dent, Gordon and Batman each face consequences for their courageous actions, some more severe then others. By the end of the film they're never the same.

Harvey Dent has the same convictions as Batman but he's not a strong. Through tragic circumstances the Joker twists his mind and turns him into a villain in the second half of the film. He becomes the key component in the Jokers master plan to create chaos. The people look up to Dent for protection and seeing him turn to the dark side would frighten the citizens to the point of madness. The Joker is truly the devil. He finds weakness and human error and morphs it into evil. There has rarely been a villain this frightening.

The cast is an ensemble. And with the talents of Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman why not? Everyone gets a chance to shine, including Maggie Gyllenhaal a beautiful and supremely gifted actress. Her portrayal of Rachel Dawes makes Katie Holmes's last credible role nearly obsolete. No actor in this movie ,or any movie, is better than Heath Ledger. Thanks to the cosmetic team he is unrecognizable, an Oscar nod could be coming for them. He speaks with an thick Chicago accent and never breaks it. He walks with a strange limp. He sucks on his cheeks because his face has been sliced open. His performance is a total performance: mind, body and soul. He was the Joker, and his portrayal will be the definitive version of the character, sorry Jack. If he doesn't win best supporting actor the Academy should stop giving the award. God bless the actor brave enough to fill his shoes an a sequel.

"The Dark Knight" is easily the greatest comic book/super hero movie ever made. This is all because of the fearless direction of Christopher Nolan. There is no boundary he wont cross, and no idea he isn't willing to explore. He takes Batman from the confined realm of comic books and brings him into reality. Gotham city exists and it exists within us. We are the people of Gotham, so frightened with threats, through fear so easily corruptible. Christopher Nolan lets us see our own human emotions at their very lowest, and fully explains why we need heroes, because heroes give us hope and take our fears away. Hope is the movies key plot device and its an emotion worth fighting for.

"The Dark Knight" comes close to being one of the greatest movies ever made. I can only hope the stiffs at the Academy recognize its brilliance. A comic book movie has never been this close to getting in the best picture race, and that's because none of them have been this good. The Joker tells Batman that they've changed Gotham City forever and they can never go back. The Dark Knight has changed comic book movies forever, and I can only hope we never go back to the way it was…in 1997.

After watching the trailer for "Lakeview Terrace" I had no idea the film was about racism. The trailer shows an interracial couple moving next door to a black cop and then being terrorized by him. But the motive for his actions isn't mentioned. Only in doing research did I learn that he's against the idea of an interracial couple. Why was it so hard to mention that? Maybe the studio thought too many people would be turned away by a movie about race, which makes me wonder why they made the movie in the first place.

Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington play Chris and Lisa Mattson, an interracial couple who have just into a nice house in Lakeview Terrace, a beautiful Californian suburb. Samuel Jackson plays Abel Turner, an LAPD cop who's a strict father, and menacing cop, and a complete racist. Only minutes into the film we learn of his distaste for Kobe Bryant when his son puts on his jersey. I wonder why? He tells him to put on Shaq's jersey instead as if Shaq is any better role model.

The movie starts off well. Turner has a good reason for dis-liking them in the beginning. Chris and Lisa have a public make out session in their pool while his kids watch from an upstairs window.

How does Turner handle it? He disables their air conditioner. At that point it becomes clear that Turner is far beyond a typical racist, he's complete psycho. And that's when "Lakeview Terrace" looses all its credibility.

Turner is supposed to be a dedicated father, whose sole purpose is to protect his kids. That gives him humanity. That makes him a believable character. But half way through the movie his kids are sent away so Abel can do things completely out of character, like hosting a bachelor party at three in the morning.

I can't blame Samuel Jackson for creating such ludicrous character. His performance is decent, but certainly not his best work when it comes to yelling and acting crazy. Blame the writers. I imagine that at one point "Lakeview Terrace" was intended to be a realistic film about a real people in a real situation: an interracial couple moves next door to a bitter racist. But I'm sure that was changed to make the movie more exciting. The bitter racist was transformed into a bitter psycho racist who does things that no human being would ever do.

I sure hope no one saw this movie expecting just a routine thriller. Films about race can be hard to stomach at times, I hope the people that saw this movie knew what they were getting. But despite themes of race, this movie has nothing to say about race. It's a silly movie that just uses racism as an easy motivation for one character to terrorize another.

There are several opportunities where the film makers had a chance to say something about race. Turner's daughter wonders what it would be like to date a white boy that she likes. Well as interesting as that would be, it never happens. What a waste.

Chris and Lisa mention children numerous times. And it becomes clear that bringing an interracial child into the world is an issue in this movie, but that sub plot has no pay off at all. What would Turner think of a mixed race child living next door? Well he never knows about it so what's the point? Despite my grievances with this film I must admit it is quite exciting. You never know what Turner is going to do next and creates genuine suspense. But that suspense isn't strong enough to cover the foul stench this film leaves behind when it ends. Not one minute of it is believable and each scene gets more ridiculous then the one before it. "Lakeview Terrace" seems to be a nice place to live, but the movie isn't worth the time.

My grade: D

"Death Race" puts me in a moral dilemma. Its deliberately trashy, shallow and inept, and for some reason I still like it. Making my feelings even more conflicted is the fact that it was directed by Paul W.S Anderson, a director who tries to turn movies into video games, and always fails. But as they say in Hollywood "you're only as good as your last picture" so Anderson is as good as anyone right now.

Not too far into the future our economy has collapsed (maybe McCain won), poverty reigns supreme and crime has become unstoppable. The prisons are filled beyond capacity, and Americas number one form of entertainment is watching the inmates fight to the death. The fights to the death got old and America needed something new. Death Race was invented. The concept is the same as death fighting, only you slug it out in an armor plated car with machine guns. The last man alive wins, and if you win enough races, you win your freedom.

Enter Jensen Ames, a former Nascar driver prior to his prison conviction, who loses his job when the local steel mill is closed. He goes home to his wife and infant daughter, only to have a masked man break in and kill his wife. Ames is framed for the crime and sent to prison.

Ames is sent to prison, where the warden Hennessey, played with excellent restraint by Joan Allen, informs him that he must replace Frankenstein, the most popular death racer, if he is ever to leave the prison. Ames agrees, and the games begin.

As a satire "Death Race" completely miss fires. The opening prologue informs us of the downfall of American society, and its never brought up again. Were informed that Death Race has become more popular then the Super Bowl with more then seventy million viewers but we never see one of those people watching. For some reason the drivers are paired with sexy women to navigate, even though they have a pit crew to do that. The women are in it for ratings, to make a statement about our own for sex as well as violence, but the viewers cant see the women inside the cars, so how do they help ratings? Just a few examples of the missed satire.

But this isn't an Oliver Stone movie. When you buy a ticket to see "Death Race", you want to see some death and some racing. And you get both, but mostly death. The racing scenes are electrifying. The combination of great stunt work, special effects and art direction give this films action the boost of adrenaline it craves. Andersons vision is to immerse us in a "Twisted Metal" video game, and he pulls it off with magnificent results. He captures the sadistic mentality of "Twisted Metal" perfectly. One driver turns his car around just to shoot another driver.

"You cant drive backwards" his partner remarks…I beg to differ. That scene will remind "Grand Theft Auto" fans of many rampages.

Anderson keeps his eyes on the finish line and "Death Race" moves towards its conclusion in a heart beat. Despite my immersion in the story, it was way too predictable. The framed for murder set up is too obvious, and before you can even figure it out for yourself they give it away. And as for the ending, only a few things can happen at the end a prison movie, and you know what they are. But despite the twists you can see coming a mile away, they're still satisfying. "Death Race" is one of the few examples where a bad script can become a good movie.

The acting is wonderful all around. Jason Statham is a read deal action super star. He's got the physique of Van Damme and a million times the acting ability. His character's quest to see his daughter gives the film its only sliver of humanity, and all a prison movie needs is a sliver.

Joan Allen as the warden plays her character so tightly she could probably crack a cashew with her but cheeks. Hennessey is so tightly wound I often wondered is she was going to implode. And towards the end she gets a chance to deliver some perfectly timed profanity. Maybe the last four letter words you;; ever hear out of her mouth.

Newcomer Natalie Martinez has infinite sex appeal as Case, the sexy vixen who rides in the passenger seat beside Ames. But more then a pretty face she gets a chance to act, and proves shell be around for years to come.

Ian McShane is perfect as the simply named Coach. His job is to coach. His weathered face and gravelly voice perfectly fit's the prototype of a man who's spent a long time in prison. But he was good in a stinker like "Hot Rod", so its no surprise here.

Director Paul W.S Anderson has always attempted to make his films into video games, and "Death Race" really does play like a video game. That's the films intention and it works. It satisfies the blood lust lurking deep within us all. Society hasn't gotten to the point where we watch snuff films but watching fictional people kill each other is still loads of fun, and so is "Death Race".

¾ stars

"Smart People" has all the ingredients for a successful comedy. It has a great cast, interesting characters and fine performances all around, but something is desperately missing. After watching this film I couldn't help but feel empty, because nothing that happened in the film moved me.

Dennis Quaid plays college professor Lawrence Wetherfold. He's a widower and a father of two. He fails to connect with his son, played by Ashton Holmes, and he's too similar to his straight laced daughter played by Ellen Page.

He has an adopted brother named Chuck and he's played wonderfully by Thomas Hayden Church. Chuck is the antithesis of Lawrence. He gives into life's indulgences, where as Lawrence doesn't and he convinces his niece Vanessa to do the same for fear that she will turn into Lawrence one day.

Vanessa is the most interesting character in the movie. She's played by Juno star Ellen Paige, and she comes off as the antithesis of Juno. While Juno just does whatever she feels, Vanessa is a straight laced, goodie two shoes who's never lived a day in her life. To anyone who says Ellen Paige only has one note, think again. This girl has all sorts of range. The problem is her characters relationship with Chuck becomes really sweet until a small twist ruins the bonding experience.

In an act of immaturity, Lawrence leaps a parking lot fence and lands with a mild seizure. He wakes up in the hospital under the care of a doctor played by Sarah Jessica Parker, who was one of his students in the past, and a predictable romance brews.

An unfortunately for Mrs. Parker she really gets the short end of the stick. Her character lacks the dimensions of the other characters, and she disappears from the screen for long stretches of time. Upon first viewing I assumed this role was intended for a smaller actress and SJP was only added for marketing. But I was wrong. The first choice for the role of the doctor was Oscar winner Rachel Weisz, and it's a waste of talent either way.

So if the acting is good, and the characters are interesting, then what's the problem? The story. Nothing really happens in "Smart People". The film moves from one scene to the next with very little change in the characters we grow attached to. There's one big twist at the end, and if that twist occurred closer the middle the story might have had an emotional impact, but it fails to leave any sort of impact. I watched the credits roll with the feeling that a great movie was cut short, and when you see them film you'll know what I mean.

Despite my mixed feelings, I see the potential in this film. In a way I've come attached to the characters and it's a little disappointing that they don't change much. "Smart People" is one of those rare instances where a sequel is necessary. With a more challenging script, another "Smart People" film could be special, but for the time being this film isn't special at all.

2.5/4 stars