Shutter Island Review

Rating-***1/2

Scorsese first showed the world that he could not only intrigue them but scare the heck out of them when he directed the brilliant Cape Fear in 1991. 19 years later he tries again with Shutter Island. Does he succeed? Yes, for the most part.

For the first two acts, the movie succeeds in every way. It attempts what very few horror/thriller pictures attempt these days: atmosfear. This is an amalgam used by movie buffs to describe a movie that relies on atmosphere to scare you instead of gore and "boo" moments.

The atmospheres of Scorsese's films are very important. In work he works very hard to immerse the audience in the narrative. Like I said, the first two acts succeed at creating an atmosphere of total and complete entrapment. From what we can see, even the weather on Shutter Island is trying to stop DiCaprio from finding the truth.

The dialogue throughout is well written and delivered, and the eerie cinematography works very well. You get an interesting insight into the slipping sanity of the main character, and wonder who people can trust. However, this all stops in the third act. Yes, there is a plot twist. No it's not hard to see coming, and no, it's not incredibly original. Honestly, all the creepiness of the first two acts is kind of destroyed by the twist.

The twist, combined with an unnecessarily long runtime, prevent a good movie from being great. I could go on about "if it was half an hour shorter," or "if the twist was better," but I won't. I really don't know whether or not to reccomend it but I'll say this: Shutter Island is no Cape Fear.

The Wolfman Review

Rating-****

I see many reviews saying that this movie is terribly acted, is very predictable and has a dumb story, among other things. I ask these reviewers: what did you expect from a remake of The Wolfman directed by Joe Johnston (Jumanji!)?

Some critics have said that this movie takes away all the "good things" from the original film and ruin them. I think you need to rewatch the original!! It's unbelievably cheesy, the transformation sequence is stupid, and overall it's just not as good as the other Universal horror classics.

Anyway, lets examine THIS Wolfman. On one hand we get: terrible, cheesy acting by everyone except Hugo Weaving and Emily Blunt, silly dialogue, unnecessary cgi, an overly quick pace, copious amounts of gore, and a dumb plot twist.

On the other hand: we get hilariously awful acting from Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins, AMAZING werewolf effects, TWO rampages, an awesome Hugo Weaving, a werewolf fight to the death (the highlight of the movie), and COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF GORE!!!

Yes, this movie is movie is, by normal standards, really, really bad. However, I had more fun with it than most of the horror movies that have been coming out lately. It's probably the best horror remake so far. Overall, The Wolfman isn't Oscar worthy, but it's a silly, corny GORY time at the movies. It's a huge amount of fun to watch, so I reccomend it, but stay away if you don't like the gorey stuff.

The Blind Side Review

Rating-****

As I start this review, I'd like to make the point not to say that this movie is "just another sports movie." Because it really isn't. When someone says a movie is "just another sports movie," I expect five things: 1. An underdog team of misfits. 2. A unique coach with some sort of dark troubles, 3. Several slow motion-filled game scenes that prove how the team has risen above what they once were. 4. A slow-to-fast clap sequence, and 5. A member of the team that is in extreme poverty or something and is helped by the coach to rise above it.

"The Blind Side" doesn't really have any of these. It's a very well done and genuinely touching movie about a woman who takes in a homeless young man. It just happens that this young man's outlet becomes football. The story is also more genuine feeling because of its recent actual occurrence.

Be sure, this is not a "white people fix everything" movie like The Last Samurai. We see more how not only does Sandra Bullock save Quinton Aaron, but is at the same time taught by him. All the actors except one (the little boy is supremely annoying) are superb and the direction is great. Yes, the script is unbelievably corny at times, but I've seen worse. Check this one out.

The Princess and The Frog Review

Rating-****1/2

Old Disney movies are great. And in most cases, kinda racist. However I try not to let that get in my way of enjoying them. With this movie, Disney has flaunted the fact that it has their first black princess. I was skeptical, but in the end not dissapointed.

The animation is classic and impressive, the story and characters are good, the racial barriers are crossed, and the music is really cool. The best part however, is the script. I think it's one of the best written Disney movies in a long time. Check this one out.

Drag Me to Hell Review

Rating-*****

FINALLY!! A classic style horror movie that's not a slasher or a remake, and has genuine scary moments! This movie kicks ass!! Sam Raimi should have been doing more movies like this instead of Spider-Man.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Review

Rating-**

This movie is silly, and it knows it. But that excuse can only go so far. The silly story is muddled by a terrible script, worse cgi, hammy acting, and the worst villain motivation ever. I say skip it, but if you're really curious, just rent it.

Pirate Radio Review

Rating-****

I'm not gonna lie, the premise for "Pirate Radio" is really weird. However, any assumptions are blown out of the water by hilarious characters, a great script and soundtrack, and superb acting. Check it out.

Bruno Review

Rating-****

Don't listen to critics and teenagers who say "it's not as good as Borat" or "it's too gay." Bruno is genuinely hilarious. It's almost if not just as funny as Borat. Even though the shock humour is sometimes too much, the movie made me laugh my ass o... (read more) Don't listen to critics and teenagers who say "it's not as good as Borat" or "it's too gay." Bruno is genuinely hilarious. It's almost if not just as funny as Borat. Even though the shock humour is sometimes too much, the movie made me laugh my ass off, and that's the point. Check it out, but don't watch it on a full stomach.

Public Enemies Review

Rating-**

Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors, but not even Michael Mann can save Depp and this movie from a lack of character development, awful cinematography, a terrible performance by Christian Bale, and a badly structured story overall. While the action is good and Marion Cotillard and Johnny Depp are great as always, "Public Enemies" just isn't all it could be.

The Last Station Review

Rating-**1/2

In "The Last Station," Leo Tolstoy, one of my favorite authors, is played by Christopher Plummer, one of my favorite actors. Does the movie come together as a wonder of literary biopicitude? Not really. 

This is a fine example of a misleading film description. Do not go into it expecting a Tolstoy biopic. It's a coming of age film about  James Macavoy's character that uses Tolstoy as a centerpiece. Or is it a family drama about Tolstoy's will and his relationship with his wife? Or is it a weird, spy thriller thing about Paul Giamatti trying to get Tolstoy's copyrights? 

I really can't be sure. Overall, when it's good, it's good, but "The Last Station" just doesn't know what it wants to be. That, combined with a director, script, and cinematographer who make it feel like a tv movie, makes this film a rent.

Fantastic Mr Fox Review

Rating-*****

This is another movie I can't do justice with a review. The animation is stunning, the dialogue is brilliant and hilarious, and the direction and general story is fantastic. This movie deserves its title. Check it out.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Rating: 0/5

The Transformers cartoon and toys were an important part of many people's childhoods, including mine. When the first movie came out, I didn't think it was great, but it was entertaining. I expected the same thing from the sequel. What I got instead was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I'm giving it the lowest possible flixster rating I can, but I wish I could give it lower. This movie is so awful it creates a new genre of terrible films.

So what if it's based on a series of toys? That's absolutely no excuse to disregard basic tenets of narrative and film making. As for the narrative, why the HELL should I care about Shia LaBouf or Megan Fox? I want to see awesome robot fights, not two horrid actors with absolutely no chemistry.

I am so tired of everyone saying that they will see a movie just because of Megan Fox. She is "hot" in the blandest, most boring way possible, and she's possibly the worst actress working today. If you really want to see a girl just as attractive as her for free, go to your local beach or Hooters.

I've never seen so many pointless characters in one movie. From obnoxious human characters to never named robots, all of them are undeveloped and uninteresting. Speaking of undeveloped, why in the world are the Transformers only in a 4th of their own movie? Why spend $200,000,000 on Soundwave and Devastator, if they're not gonna do anything?

The story? What story? It's like diarrhea, a huge, unintelligible mess. The writing is even worse, and don't even get me started on the action scenes. If I had any idea what was going on during these scenes, the movie would get at least half a star more. The awful cinematography, combined with the ugliest robot designs I've ever seen creates the worst action I think I've ever seen.

Also, did we really need to have a movie longer than The Dark Knight? Really? REALLY?!? But all I've said isn't the worst part. That honor goes to Skidz and Mudflap, two twin Autobots who walk like monkeys, have big lips, grills, and talk in cartoon Ebonics. I'm offended, not racially, but by the fact that producers or writers would actually use this as humor in 2009.

Overall, I could never express my full hatred for this movie for killing my childhood and giving me this movie. He's the biggest hack in filmmaking history. If see it in a store or blockbuster, burn it.

Zombieland Review

Rating-*****

Zombies are probably the most popular subgenre of horror cinema. They also happen to be my favorite subgenre. I read comics and novels about them, play video games with zombies, and of course, watch zombie movies.

But that's the thing. There really... (read more) Zombies are probably the most popular subgenre of horror cinema. They also happen to be my favorite subgenre. I read comics and novels about them, play video games with zombies, and of course, watch zombie movies.

But that's the thing. There really haven't been that many good ones from the modern age. The good ones (28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead) are great, but the bad ones (House of the Dead, Zombie Strippers) are terrible.

Zombieland is the first modern zombie film I can really say I loved. I mean, it has all the things a zombie movie should have! Great characters, well shot, postapocalyptic scenery, fantastic and hilarious dialogue, and of course, awesome zombie kills. But, out of all these, a certain cameo just makes the movie.

I can't praise Zombieland enough, and I certainly can't in this review. It's just that good. Do yourself a favor and see it more
than once.

Book of Eli Review

Rating-*

This is my first review with spoilers in it so be warned.

If you really couldn't figure out what Denzel's mysterious "book" was by the trailers, I'm telling you right now. It's a bible. That's it. Nothing special. Well, it is the "last bible in the world," or whatever, but "The Book of Eli" is basically a 2 hour movie about Denzel Washington taking the bible to somewhere safe.

Despite the terrible story, the rest of it must be ok right? Wrong. The acting is unbelievably miscast, like Daybreakers there are a million unexplained things, and the villiain is incredibly unthreatening. I could not believe that any of the bad henchemen would want to follow Gary Oldman. The action would be ok if it wasn't shot on a dolly and circled the whole time.

There's also a bit of dialogue where Denzel Washington says he's been walking west for 30 years, with god or something as his guide. If that's the case, god is the worst guide ever if it's taken Eli 30 YEARS to cross the country.

The fx are officially the worst I've seen since G.I. Joe. There's one part where Eli stops to look down a broken highway. When we see an upward shot of this, it's a still image, Eli doesn't even move. Not even a photograph, a drawing. If you look hard enough, you can even see the artist's signature.

Now I'm not the best math student, but I predict that 80% of this movie is in slow motion. Even some of the already boring walking scenes. Though I'm criticizing the hell out of this movie, I have to admit, there's one part that I love.

At one point, Eli escapes from his prison in Gary Oldman's town. Oldman's main goon kills Eli's guard for failing. The baddies then run out of the building to catch Eli, and the guard they just killed is standing with them. I was laughing so hard in the theater.

Overall, besides that one goof and a Tom Waits cameo, "The Book of Eli" is not worth the time. Honestly, save your money to see Avatar in IMAX 3D, rent Mad Max for a good postapocalyptic action movie, and skip this movie.

Crazy Heart Review

Rating-*1/2

Crazy Heart is a movie that has been praised for one thing and one thing only: Jeff Bridges. And I agree, Bridges is the only thing that's worth praising. He makes a good performance out of a terribly written role.

According to the movie's description, Bridges' character of "Bad Blake" has had too many years on the road, too many marriages, and too much to drink. Would it have been so hard to show us any of that? It felt like the movie just didn't want to develop any of its characters. Especially Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is arguably the worst part of the movie. Not because she's a bad actress, not at all. It's just that, considering how Gyllenhaal tries to come across as a sophisticated, independent woman in her roles, I just could not believe that she would ever want to sleep with the drunken, hairy, and downright gross Blake.

As for the plot, I mean, nothing really happens. Sure, Bad Blake gets drunk and has some stupid romantic drama with Gyllenhaal, but that's not a narrative, that's just a montage. The cinematography is the real culprit for this, as it simply does not put forth the drama.

Overall, this movie is a wasted opportunity. Skip it.

Avatar Review

Rating-*****

Because I don't think I can do justice to how much I liked this movie in a review, I will say one thing. In this world of huge HDTV's, blu-rays with tons of extras, and overpriced tickets, I am glad this movie came out. It saved the moviegoing experience for me. Avatar gave me a reason to get up and go to the movies. See it in 3-d on the biggest screen you can. Thank god for Avatar

Daybreakers Review

Rating-*

Ok ok ok. Let me start this review with a statement: no Daybreakers is not as bad as Twilight. Then again, I've never seen Twilight, and I thought Daybreakers was pretty bad. I found so many problems with it I don't know where to start. First of all, there's no explanation for how the vampire plague started, and how, if it was so rampant, did any humans survive? There's no explanation for most things in the movie. The audience has to infer everything. That's bad filmmaking.

Also, the social satire, while pretty clever, falls flat on its face with one dimensional villains. The other characters suffer the same fate. Why has character development been suddenly shafted from movies these days? Daybreakers doesn't even TRY to flesh them out. Ethan Hawke's character of Edward Dalton could have been interesting, if we knew anything about him.

Isabel Lucas, who was lauded for doing absolutely nothing in Transformers 2, also appeared. In the theater, I thought "oh! Maybe she'll actually have a part in the movie this time!" The film seemed to say "pfft. Are you kidding me? This is Daybreakers!" before tossing Lucas away like a used napkin.

The the writing and directing is convoluted and they plod along at the pace of a paraplegic tortoise. The special effects are even worse, they look like a cutscene from a ps2 game. And the action scenes, dear lord the action scenes. I should mention, these vampires conform to every myth except for super strength and speed. I guess a plague can make billions of people be invisible in mirrors but not make them smart enough to develop armor that actually blocks things.

The action scenes are shot in a bizarre way, so that they're paced incredibely slowly, and they're boring. Vampire action should not bore me. I guess the main drawing point of this movie is that the vampires are actually vampires instead of being the angsty teenagers who happen to have fangs they are in Twilight. But Dracula had super strength. Hell, even Count Orlock (look it up) had claws.

Daybreakers is also arguably Willem Dafoe's worst role. He chews the scenery so hard he swallows it. Whenever he's on screen you can't take your eyes off of him because he's delivering such stupid facial expressions and lines. It's genuinely hilarious. What else is there...? Oh yes. Terrible editing filled with jump cuts and music that will swell when characters do such exciting things as walk slowly down a hallway, only to calm down when a monster jumps out.

Unbelievably unscary and overused "boo" moments, one of the most badly done and hilarious slow-mo scenes in history, and two characters, who I genuinely liked. Both of whom are seen once or twice, then killed off in their very next scene. Hooray for token characters. Also, in the background their are tons of posters for "The Vampire Army," assumedly the most badass of badasses.

When we finally see one of these vamps, in full body armor, with a gun in hand, corner Hawke and Dafoe, he is knocked out in one punch by the skinny, malnourished, incredibley wooden, HUMAN female character. All in all, spend your vampire dollars on renting The Lost Boys or Near Dark to see real bad ass vampires, and for the love of god skip Daybreakers.

Hurt Locker Review

Rating-*****

Brilliant. That's the only way I can describe Kathryn Bigelow's masterpiece "The Hurt Locker." Technically, there are no flaws. The fx, while a little artsy, are great. The lack of music and artificial lighting create an inescapable tension that really makes you wonder whether or not the characters will make it. Bigelow's use of budget for the movie is incredible. She wastes absolutely nothing and tells her story of a Iraq war bomb squad perfectly.

The performances are fantastic and completely believable. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and even Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes are nearly unrecognizable as actors playing characters instead of just characters. The handheld camerawork and Bigelow's direction are so immersive that I occaisionaly thought I was watching a documentary.

Even though the movie is basically one incredibley tense disarming scene after another, the atmosphere is so well set up that you really realize how this is real life for thousands of Americans. Also, The Hurt Locker finally shows something I thought I might never see again: character development!!

What else can I praise...? Oh yes: the superb way that Bigelow uses the intensity of the war to develop character studies for each person, and the way the movie shows that everyone fighting in Iraq is crazy and fighting an unwinnable war. And, (listen Michael Moore) for once it doesn't portray the insurgents as misunderstood freedom fighters. Overall, for the first time in a huge while, (seriously, I don't remember the last time I said this) I can't find anything wrong with this movie. I'd say it's pretty damn perfect. See it!!

Sherlock Holmes Review

Rating-****

When you come down to it, Sherlock Holmes novels are slow, meticulous, and all about the thought process. The character of Holmes is an arrogant, semi anti-social drug addict blessed with amazing deductive powers. People call Holmes the greatest detective in all of literature.

These people pass over great, sober detectives, such as Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, and Inspector Jules Maigret. Though I have always had a problem with Holmes for his drug addiction and snarkiness, I own many Holmes movies and all the books. I can say that I know Arthur Conan Doyle's master detective pretty well.

And the Sherlock Holmes I know does NOT do Bourne style stunts. When I saw the trailers for "Sherlock Holmes," I wasn't impressed. The only thing I could think of was: when did Sherlock Holmes become James Bond? I adamantly told people I wouldn't see it. Then it came out, and I went to see it anyway.

Two hours later I left the theater, and it was pretty good. Not an opus of mystery filmmaking, but then again it's hard to do something like that. Mystery fiction is in fact best left to books, as any of the Poirot movies will show.

I think what made me like this movie was that it was much more Holmes-y than the trailers hinted. There was explanation, exposition, and of course, an arrogant Sherlock. Jude Law is also a fantastic Watson, the first person to ever portray a Watson who isn't a bumbling fool or just someone to make Holmes look better.

I also enjoyed that we actually see into Holmes' head in the action scenes. We get a better sense of him as a strategist this way. I was really glad that they made up their own story, since other adaptations with general titles usually try to pull elements from too much source material, and the plot gets crazy. And remember that comment I made about Sherlock Holmes being like Bond? I had more fun watching this movie than the 10 or so most recent bond movies.

Overall, "Sherlock Holmes" is far from a perfect movie, and it's way too long, but I had a ton of fun watching it. Check it out.