moselekm Reviews

Empire (2005)

They got away with this?

[1/10 · 6 September 2010]

This is gonna be a short one.

I love historical fiction. I like when they create realistic characters that play a part in a historical figure's life. Rome and Tudors are great examples of this. However this one not only creates a completely unrealistic character/hero that we follow around, it also creates fictitious events and characters that actually existed.

I was excited to hear about a show that was about young Octavius during his life before becoming absolute ruler of Rome and becoming the first true Emperor. Instead we learn about a child who is completely uneducated, lacking any charisma, and lacks any actual wisdom to be a powerful ruler. It's as if they wanted to explain the magnitude of his character by making him garbage in the start and progressing his character. Sorry, but Augustus has his life written about upwards, downwards, starboard to port. He was a great and ruthless man from start to finish.

Aside from the events and characters in history being completely destroyed or missing, the character who we piggyback on, Tyrannus, is a Gladiator who is basically the greatest fighter to ever exist. And you may be excited by hearing that, but if you combine all the fights scenes in the season of this show; it still wouldn't amount to a single fight scene from Rome or Gladiator.

The plot is flushed with historical butchery and massive plot holes. Along with that, you can't seem to find any love for any of the characters and if you have a seventh grade education or higher, you'll be in disbelief that this show actually got aired.

Centurion (2010)

Just Enough of Everything

[8/10 · 5 September 2010]

Let's get one thing straight with me. I hate action films that revolve around betrayal and/or romance. And because people seem to be horrible at even watching a film, I was completely scared of both of these when watching this film. Without giving anything away, there is everything in this movie and just the right amount of it.

UK Films that go back to 1400 AD and lower are always a treat. They give us their hallmark actors and actresses and we get to see them play, generally the same sort of role they did in their previous films. A nice little change is the Charismatic General, Dominic West, still plays his usual egocentric role, but instead of being the antagonist, he plays quite a lovable hero. His second up, Michael Fassbender who plays a determined and soulful leader, does a grand job to pick up on the other end of the scale. The supporting cast that we meet along the way are perfect for their roles and no one misses a beat.

This movie does have a storyline that does follow pretty accurate to Rome's history. Around the time of Emperor Commodus, best known for being in the movie Gladiator. However for history buffs, we know it was Commodus who began pushing for the island of Brittany. He was also the first 'duke'/'lord' of it as well. But no Emperor is mentioned, just a fun fact. Along with the accurate story-telling the movie does like to center itself around the fence of gore. Visceral Gore. Whoever began perfecting the use of CG-Gore, my hats off to them. Although it's pretty obvious when it's used, it allows for some crazy hack-n-slash effects. Such as cutting someone in half, cutting someone's arm off, cutting off half of someone's head. These sorts of things that make guys fist pump and lesser men cringe. But the gore is not out of bad taste.

• Like all British films that have such gore, it some how comes across as tasteful. I don't know if it's realistic, since I've never seen someone get axed in half, but they definitely shot for the grittiness of hand to hand combat. On that same note, many people I can imagine hated the director-of-photography. Many of the action scenes that involve many mêlées are broken up into almost an animate slide show of people putting the finishing blow on their opponent. Some of us may love it, while others enjoy more of the dramatic fights where swords cling more often than blood is spilled. But I'd like to think some of us are educated and know that is not how it worked back then.

I am going to begin speaking about the ending now. No spoilers, but if you read too far into it you may begin creating your own ending and I'd hate for you to go into this movie thinking you know the ending. -A lot of people didn't like the ending. They felt it was perhaps weak? I don't see it as weak. I see it as probably the best possible ending. I got exactly what I wanted to be honest. I think people go to movies and still expect faeries and unicorns to make everything be alright. But the facts are facts and this movie obeyed them as best as theatrically possible. +End Ending discussion~!

So in conclusion. The movie is amazing. I have to say it's one of the better historical-fiction films I have seen. I think I may like it better than 300; in terms of Greco-Roman history. The movie combines action with just enough character-interaction and drama to keep you interested. Don't expect any twist endings or even any tear jerkers. It's just a good film to watch alone or with some friends. It may even get you interested enough to begin researching the 'rust and iron' age of the Roman Empire.

The Box (I) (2009)

You're gonna have to dig for depth.

[4/10 · 4 September 2010]

And by dig, I mean make up something completely absurd. Ever have those friends at the dinner table who come up with some quack excuse on how a simple and often garbage movie should be seen as artful or a great piece for humanity? This should reawaken their gift of gab. Let's take a few solid facts of where this movie came from.

It came from a short story written for Playboy in 1970. It progressed into a teleplay in the mid and late 1970's and then reused again in the 80's reboot of the Twilight Zone. So as you can see, the story was basically made to be 19-25 minutes long plus commercials. Not made to be made into an almost two hour movie. I was actually blown away the movie was listed as breaking 90 minutes. I was confused onto what they could actually produce for such a simple story, even if they had materials to use from at least three different variants.

Now before I continue on any potential tangent on how this movie is lackadaisical in it's attempt to tell any single plot element, I will give it this. It will keep you interested and perhaps even guessing. However the movie starts and ends like a Twilight Episode, but instead of being satisfied; you realize you just watched a fifteen minute plot line being dragged out over 115 minutes worth of eerie plot-development. Which may sound awesome, but really, is the middle of the movie going to outweigh the end? The answer is no. You can maybe have flaws throughout the movie, but if you can't sell it at the end, then what the hell is the point? The movie has major plot holes, I'll let you find them for yourself, but they're their. Many people will also defend this movie by saying it's a scope on human emotions, selfishness, and any other community college notebook found in the desk of a psychology class. But the clear fact is, the movie wasn't even sure what direction it was going to take and any attempt to resolve that was completely dismissed with the ending. And let's get one thing straight. The ending doesn't upset me because it's not how I wished it to end or because I didn't get any answers. It upset me because it made no sense at all. At all. The movie seems to traverse about three major Occult subjects and it doesn't have the common decency to attempt to join them in some fashion to where they should be even introduced.

Now before someone tries to defend this by perhaps it's to be interpreted, that isn't the case. No string of intelligence could take this movie and actually produce some sort of linkage between them all. There isn't even a flow of evidence in this 'mystery/thriller'. It's just a congealed mess of what Richard Kelly's brain is.

And to conclude: Richard Kelly. He made a great little movie that has generated many interesting theories called: Donnie Darko. But that was his only movie that even bounded to a sense of reality and pseudo-fiction. Southland Tales was about nothing and all the other movies he is accredited to writing, he was the actually sole-visionary, so it doesn't really count. So basically, if you want a movie that will pique your interest and maybe jog your mind, then this is it. But wait, let me rephrase. If you're the kind of person like that AND also like a movie that insults any of your theories with a busted ending: this is it.

The Last Airbender (2010)

Harsh reviews? Lighten up kids.

[8/10 · 3 July 2010]

What makes a movie? There are many answers to this, but on a very low key, let's go watch a weekend movie. A movie has a hero who everyone can love and has some background we can understand, or at the very least keep up with. The hero usually has support, to cover the flanks of any personality traits the hero may have. This is to show the hero is not perfect and he can learn from his supporting crew. And the bad guy(s) are generally someone easy to hate and the movie usually reveals the enemy in a way so you can instantly tell they are no good.

This film does that. So why the 2 stars and lower? I guess the people who watch the cartoon show are butt hurt about something. I can't place it, I have only seen a handful of episodes. But if you spent the money to go see this movie at a midnight viewing or something without doing your research: Like that M. Night is stealing credit for everything. Then the jokes on you - thanks for the cash, idiot.

For those of us who just want a movie to kick back to that has a solid story line, good martial arts, and some amazing effects, then look no further. Allow the Last Airbender to be your whore for the silver screen. I won't go on about the great parts of this film. So I will stick with picking out the flaws.

The flaw is that M. Night is a hack and got to do this film. I was scared of this film since I saw the teaser. M. Night not only tries to pretty much overshadow the people who made the good parts of the movie great, but he pretty much makes it difficult for you to even get a preview of who actually made this film great. Because it wasn't him. M. Night is the bane of this movie. From the slow moving scenes, bad transition shots, and everything else M. Night is great at doing, is what makes this movie seem to drag on at parts.

Casting. Casting was a huge problem for everyone I believe. I mean, he attempted to Asian-up this film by changing the annunciation, but the characters I thought should definitely be Asian, are just a couple of white people surrounded by Inuits and Asians. However, I will admit I was taken aback by who played Zukko, I ended up enjoying him. He was a little campy, but he did his part. Zukko is campy in the cartoon, come on now. I also love who played his uncle. And the Fire Lord himself is an amazing actor. So the Fire Nation side was pretty down pact in my opinion.

Humor. The show is campy. It really is. And M. Night defends the lack of humorous scenes due to the actual mood of the movie and time. The movie didn't even break 2 hours first off. And second, M. Night you retarded hack, it's called Comic Relief. It's not just a great program canceled back in the 90's. Any movie can use Comic Relief. ESPECIALLY A KIDS ACTION FILM! What were there... 2 maybe 3 scenes where you can find yourself smirking in humor? And they all seem to happen at the start of the film. So it's as if when M. Night was spitting all over the original writer's and creator's faces, he forgot he was writing a kids movie 20 minutes in.

ASIDE FROM M. NIGHT EXISTING IN THIS FILM IT'S A GOOD FLICK AND WORTH SEEING ON THE BIG SCREEN! However. Let us all laugh ourselves to death... When in the closing credits, it says nice and big for you: Writer, Director & Producer: M. Night Shamalan. And the REAL writers don't pop up till further into the credits. Oh M. Night, how you are the bane of decent movies.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Story telling at perhaps it's best. And with toys.

[8/10 · 27 June 2010]

People made huge hype about this movie. I was pretty pumped at the idea of a third one when I heard about it a few years ago. However, as the last months closed I became more and more disinterested as I was reminded how weak the second one was. If you liked the second one, great. So did I, but I certainly dreaded one with the same pacing.

I'd have to say that the only thing I really really disliked, was that the old cast seemed of just died off. I mean, seriously. Etch was in the friggin' first teaser! He's not even in the movie. I honestly felt lost without him. How cool was it to see Etch just scramble around and draw crap perfectly?! Well, not in this movie. Also some key players are also missing. R.C., Speak and Spell, and Boe Pete (Is that how it's spelled?) I didn't like that. The movie, like all the other movies takes us from one setting to another. Forcing the toys to learn some disturbed truth at the new setting and to figure out how to get out. All while trying to earn Andy's love and respect! I am not saying this formula sucks. It's great. It's easy enough for an infant to follow and allows enough entertainment for an adult to actually enjoy. However, the final climax was a bit lacking to me. And I felt like I had been there before.

I am announcing all these bad things, because that's all that matters in a Toy Story review. WE ALL KNOW IT'S WORTH WATCHING! But which one is best? Certainly not this one. Not to me at least. Toy Story has the original charm, it's tough to beat. So tough that I doubt it can be beat. But this one beats the second one easily.

So all in all, this movie is worth viewing in theaters. In fact, if you haven't, then you're simply not a movie go'er. This movie is well worth the time and money and for old school fans it will make you want to watch the first two over and over again and talk about all three movies.

Fighting (2009)

Channing Tatum proves to be a tool. Again.

[3/10 · 15 June 2010]

I watched this one a while ago, when it came out on video. Not even sure if this pile made it to Theaters. It really upset me though. That they put Terrence Howard in such a crap film. Because I like Howard, personally. And it seems like anything Channing touches turns to crap. But it's really not his fault, he just needs to find a new line of work.

So Fighting. To really break it down to you, let's say your 3rd grade English teacher gave you a writing assignment with the following elements you needed to include. First: A film that can be accomplished by a crap-shoot actor like Tatum. Second: A film that makes professional fighting look stupid, skilless, and overall a washout. And finally: Make the main character the worst fighter ever, but still victorious in every struggle.

That's the film. Your child probably wrote it. But his version was better.

Tatum plays his usual character. A no talent, brainless wanna-be thug who turns whatever tricks to get by. He frequents the military as his main trick, but in this he sells bootleg literature. Yea, I guess it exists. Parents seem to be garbage enough to buy their kids bootleg books. But not to get into that, this is focusing on horrible Tatum and this movie is.

He gets a scuffle with some sneaktheif and beats him up. Mind you, it's a terrible fight, but this seems to be the most realistic event in the movie and the best fight Tatum puts up. To wrap it up, he is scouted by Howard who is an underground fighting manager and Tatum becomes his Balboa.

In all the fights, Tatum basically gets whooped to crap and then Tatum basically gets some lucky break or someone gets in the middle of it and Tatum wins. What blows my mind is that it's so obvious the fight ended unfairly, but everyone thinks Tatum is the best fighter since Ryu and Ken.

So if you're in the mood to waste time, or watch Tatum suck again, or see the worst fighting film that takes itself waaaaay too seriously. This is for you. If you want something better, but along the same lines: Last Dragon.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

Okay nerds, it's a good movie; and I'm a nerd.

[7/10 · 15 June 2010]

What's with Video Gamers with no sense for film doing putting down this film? Shouldn't you all be busy buying EGM's Calander Issue for the sexiest pixel breasts? Seriously guys, let me break down to you why this movie is a great dedication to the game series. From someone who has played and beaten it.

The movie would have been an 8 or higher if the action was a bit more involved. People keep claiming this movie had amazing parkour. It was good, but hardly amazing (comparing this to the freelance free-runners seen on Youtube that are a dime a dozen). Now I am not asking for more blood. I understand this is Disney and they have limits, but there seemed to be some slow moments (think The Mummy Returns).

Actually! This is a lot like the Mummy Series. Now maybe I am just being biased and geographically racist "A desert flick is a desert flick", but the action is few and far between with some hardly enamored moments, and very staggered pacing. But! The film still survives my critical grasp for giving it a low score, because it's a great play off the game series, the cast was phenomenal, and the effects were top notch.

Now for you gamers saying they didn't stick to the story good enough. If we take this as the first movie to the first game, let me correct you in your assumption that you're smart. You're an idiot. Sorry, no one would make profit on a movie based on a guy running around a castle that is more dilapidated than Ground Zero. No one would watch a movie with a shallow story line; like that in the first game. (This is not a video game review, but I do love that game, but let's face it. A full transition into a movie would be worst than Saw XXIII).

So is this film worth seeing in theaters? Maybe. Kids loved this film, so take them, it's a rare kids movie that the jaded father won't mind. If you have no interest in a watered down action movie, wait for it on Bluray. If you simply spend money on just the best of that genre. Then save your money for A-Team for your action movie for summer.

The A-Team (2010)

Not for the Jaded. A great summer flick.

[8/10 · 14 June 2010]

I have only seen a few episodes of the original show, so I can't say I am at all biased; other than the fact that I absolutely love every person cast for this action/comedy.

There are films who like to ride that grainy fine line of realistic and go-for-broke-unrealism. Where other films, like Shoot'em Up just completely ignore it. A-Team walks the line and teeters perfectly along it. Yes, many of the scenes are over-the-top and they don't try and sell it as anything other than entertaining and a huge laugh. If you're someone who has to identify every impossible feat, than this nor movies are for you.

It has been a long time since an action film has been able to keep me interested. So many films try and mix drama, comedy, effects, and whatever artsy fascination a director may have that many films have dry, long, and unneeded parts. In fact the last Action film I saw in theaters that really kept me interested and away from my phone from sending texts or checking the time was Smoking Aces, an earlier film done by Carnahan.

A-Team doesn't try to be anything it isn't. It's a fun, entertaining, and grasping when it needs to be. Like Peppard said about his time on the set of A-Team: This is a Man's show. And the only time the movie loses pace is when they enter in one dramatic/romantic scene, but thankfully that has a reason to, so we can all take a sigh of relief.

So again, A-Team won't blow your mind with any effects, plot, or anything like that. But it will entertain you like an action film should. And if you find yourself without an action movie that could keep you hooked on the screen for a while, then I believe this to be the remedy.

Party Down (2009– )

TV's Best Kept Sevret

[9/10 · 11 May 2010]

Where to even begin. I stumbled upon this when browsing New TV Comedies on Watch Instantly from Netflix and decided to give it a shot. And I am very glad I did. I have burned through all my TV Comedies forty times over. The Office, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, 30 Rock, Arrested Development, and all of those. This one easily fights for my number one spot of favorite TV Sitcoms. The show doesn't try any quirky gimmicks (which drove me quickly away from watching too much 30 Rock), or anything over the top. The film is based on a Motley Crew of Caterer's of has-beens or aspiring actors who do the dry waiting job while they wait for their big break.

Every character is hilarious and none are annoying. Granted, some will have their episodes where they are the heel, but the writers have a great punishment regiment in each episode which makes you feel like you weren't harassed the entire episode by horrible writing just to create an annoying personality.

The show has enough story to sync them all together and to keep you interested in the chronological history of everything, but not so much that it becomes a drama or a sinking point. The comedy is purely adult with minimal if any at all slapstick. It's namely realistic and witty humors launched from all sides with realistic and sideshow situations.

Over all this show is great for those like me who have exhausted all the better comedy shows out there and need something new and unique. I have never seen a show like this one or sell it like this.

H.H. Holmes: America's First Serial Killer (2004)

This is... Crap. But hear me out.

[5/10 · 9 May 2010]

Alright. Not much to say, other than READING is far more entertaining than this horribly narrated and presented documentary is. I will just get right down to what wasn't good about it. And there wasn't that much bad about it. It's just that the falling points to the film are constant and never expand nor decrease.

The narrator to me was like an older Ben Stein telling me all about the 19th century. I really don't like listening to Ben Stein attempt to educate me. The information is also poorly presented. For example, a big part about Holmes was his building he designed. Now they do have a segment on it, but they really don't emphasize (enough in my opinion) how he really went about it. They did a sad little black and white RE-ENACTMENT of a innocent victim going through the labyrinth and being caught and placed inside the trap-walls. But it seriously just belittled Holmes.

The chronology was poorly paced and just didn't have much direction to it. I found myself wondering what was pacing through Holmes as his evil began to really take part.

Now I understand that Holmes existed before modern science and psychology, so everything about who he was, how he was, and all of that is pure assumption. But we have a thing called educated guess and I don't think anyone will be upset about several educated guesses to breathe some life into the film. This was not done at all.

The entire film seemed to drag on. The first thirty minutes felt like two hours. Literally. I was hoping that it would pick up so pace towards the end. But it actually just slowed down.

Overall, this film is very educational, but I would seriously recommend having some background knowledge first. I would seriously expect this film to be on a shelf at some high school; an idle threat to force the students to watch and take notes on the film. Because it's extremely dry on a very INTERESTING subject. Honestly though. You will thank me and yourself for picking up a book or essay vice watching this dry cardboard cut out of HHHolmes.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Great Addition to Marvel. Not so much to Iron Man.

[7/10 · 8 May 2010]

Tony Stark. I started reading comics since I could read (circa 1989) and Iron Man didn't really catch my eye because he had more depth than most of the comics. And as a kid, I didn't like depth outside of explosion from ordnance and impact action. Iron Man had a problem that just didn't interest me and that problem really took a toll on issues. That problem was ALCOHOLISM. This is what separated Iron Man from other super heroes. (That and he wasn't induced with super powers, but enough with semantics). So I am going to open this up with; Why the hell is Stark not an alcoholic in this. They replaced his alcoholism with egotism. But - he was an ego in the comics too...

No, I won't bash this on stance of being a comic-nerd. But I will say this. Iron Man 2 should be called: Avengers Initiative Initiative. It had more bearing with the Avengers than it did with the actual Iron Man. The movie has a lot to tell and it tells it pretty well. Stark is under fire from Congress for owning and monopolizing the MOBILE SUIT WEAPON, Iron Man. His Arc-Core also seems to be slowly killing him and he still has to maintain Stark Industries along with policing with Iron Man. The action has about the same pace as the first movie. Maybe even weaker? I can't say that though, it does a decent job at delivering, but Iron Man doesn't really face many humans in this one, like he did in the first one.

The effects are outstanding of course, with plenty of effects to choose from. From multiple IRON MAN suit designs (which made Iron Man so cool EARLY on in the original comics) and explosions and gun fire. The cast is stellar; everyone does their part well. The director even plays a 400% more direct roll in this movie and does it really well. You will hold no ill-will toward Jon for being more of a ham in this movie. He provides key comedy relief.

Don Cheadle plays the new War Machine. A face I didn't really like when I heard about the change, but he does a great job none the less. As far as the rest, if you're a comic book fan and eagerly await the following Marvel movies to bring The Avengers to Fruition, then you will have to see this. If you're just an action fan that enjoys comic-book action, then this should be priority if there is nothing else out to sate your hunger. Everyone else? You can easily take a pass and not feel bad about it.

Overall the movie is well done and it's tough to weigh which one was better. Both movies have great things about them. But again, I didn't feel like I was in an Iron Man movie. I felt like I was in a prologue to a prologue to the Avengers that was catered with OUTSTANDING Robert Downy Jr. Humor.

I.O.U.S.A. (2008)

Scary; but true. Relevant and well Paced.

[8/10 · 3 May 2010]

I am no political graduate or major in economics, but I do believe that the average 'Joe American' can certainly put two and two together and realize that America is in a crisis. Watching this film over a year after it's release just makes it even scarier.

I don't have much to say on the film. It does a good job on explaining the American Debt, giving some (and enough) details on how it all started (1776) and to now. It gives solid details on what led to the current state of Federal Debt and it issues out 'how to solve' this problem.

Really, the pathetic thing (not of the film, but on congress) is that the SOLUTIONS, which are proclaimed radical by the 'back of the box summary' are extremely blatant and common sense.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

Quintessential to any Film Lover or Modest Connoisseur

[9/10 · 2 May 2010]

This is one of those rare 'hip' documentaries that doesn't blur any lines, edit rolls of film, or anything like that to the point that it only delivers the narrator's point of view. (Like many of the Michael Moore productions). Granted THIS FILM does edit reels and focus on the inconsistencies of the MPAA, but I am sure, no, POSITIVE, that the edits were made to save us all time on the garble and bull of the responses from much of the MPAA resistances.

The film takes place in 2004-2005 with Kirby Dick outlining the rise of Film and the rise of the MPAA. He does this extremely well, so much that you could never have heard of the MPAA or Rating System and become a pro within fifteen minutes of the film start. He then begins interviews with key directors to further enhance your outlook on what the MPAA really is and the inconsistencies of the Rating System. Including very very real proof. And for the most part the directors interviewed are veterans to Hollywood and are critically acclaimed; speaking out against the fascist state of the MPAA.

Like most if not all documentaries, the mood will always be to make you hate the opposition. And like so many others, this is against the Censoring in America. But it's not a cheap trick like BLAME THE PARENTS or anything like that. We don't need any more films on how we can blame parents. I believe we're all professionals at that. Instead this cuts deep at the MPAA. And it doesn't treat the MPAA as some single entity. Kirby Dick hires his OWN Private Eye (Who does an awesome job) to find out who the faceless figures are behind the clockwork.

Kirby uses quotes and citations from then CEO of MPAA and many of the figure heads or GUIDELINES and obliterates them with the existences of their contradictions. It's one of those documentaries that seems to hit on one thing and it opens several doors to other things, but Kirby only glimpses at these things, but stays on a steady line at the MPAA. (What I mean is; he will talk about studios vs independent films and how they are treated differently. He then exposes {not to any surprise} that the handful of studios own a great amount of media control and that those companies are owned by an even larger conglomerate with even more cultural and economic control.

If you want a movie you can kick back to, learn from, and get all riled up about then watch this. It most certainly will spurn conversations for weeks to come if you have movie loving friends.

Ripley's Game (2002)

A Different sort of Intensity

[7/10 · 9 April 2010]

John Malkovich plays the sort of character you wish him to play in all movies. A calm, collective, emotionless director of intensity and intelligence. He seems to have such a professional balance of effeminate attitude; contrasted to his very manly appeal. It's easy to say Malkovich is what really makes this film worth watching.

Without John and imagining anyone else this movie would ride the fine line of a B-Listed movie, but with John coming out as an older, wiser, and hardened Tom Ripley the movie is instantly worth shelving in your collection. I wouldn't say it's a classic, but it's a classic Malkovich.

The film basically takes place many years, probably decades and decades after the original: The Talented Mister Ripley and Ripley appears to be completely different. Complete evolved and trained in what sort of monster he had become. He lives in Europe living the high life as a black market art dealer and owns a beautiful plot of land with a mansion with a beautiful and talented wife to boot. A wife who even knows his business makes you realize how amazing Tom Ripley is. To be a thug-con artist and swing an amazingly talented wife at the same time.

The plot starts rolling with Tom Ripley being publicly insulted at a neighbor's dinner party. The subject being that "he has no taste". Tom rolls with it and ignores it for the most part but tracks a laughable revenge by setting him up with a mobster who coerces him (the insulter of Ripley) to become a one time hit man.

Things spiral out of control from there. Or at least out of control for everyone, but Ripley, who seems to just be calm, collective, and uncaring of all the events surrounding him. This film doesn't have the greatest cast or the best plot. It's not that that makes this film worth watching. It's the superior class Malkovich brings to the stage/film. If you like Malkovich and/or liked the original film, you will want to see this.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

"I'd rather be a fake somebody, than a real nobody..."

[9/10 · 6 April 2010]

I'd have to say The_Void really sums up on how amazing this film is and because I find his library of reviews so helpful, I will link them now: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2248099/comments?order=date&start=0 His review should definitely take precedence over all other Reviews for this film (and probably a lot more). I write this review for the chance that if someone liked one of my opinions, they'd come and see what I thought of this masterpiece.

I can't remember that last time I felt my heart jerked like this in some time. Well that is a lie, I do remember. The last time would have had to of been when I saw: Match Point. So let's get the 'if you liked/hated' bust out of the way and say if you liked Woody Allen's Match Point, I can't see why you wouldn't ultimately like this. Not that they're AT ALL the same, nor do I have some sort of expertise on the matter. I just know the rare feeling Match Point gave me is the same this movie gave me. It sets so many moods and it does it with such finesse you find yourself begging for more and more in a devilish fashion you'll catch yourself many times wondering why you're rooting for Mr. Ripley.

The movie is only 2 hours and 20 minutes or there abouts. But it feels like a lifetime. Not the sort of lifetime when you're waiting in the DMV. The sort of life time where you experience, learn, and think about through your life. Not to say this film is a learning experience. But it IS an experience and it will fill a hole in your film-going life for that thick-plot, character ran, and dark trenching void you may have. I can't think of a film that quite compares in sequence of events, twists, character development, character inclusion quite like this.

Every character is important, every event is important, and everything you think is pretty null and void. Or possibly that is just me.

It should be heavily noted that this film STARTS SLOW, as many have said and probably judged it that way. I'd say it picks up speed around the 15-20 minute mark and it roller coasters from there. And let me tell you, when it accelerates, it seriously doesn't know how to stop and personally, I never wanted it to stop. This is the sort of film where not even the most annoying person can scream at the film, because you're too tight lipped about everything going on and you'll most likely find yourself wanting Ripley to keep going. And when I say Ripley, I really mean the movie.

And the movie doesn't stop, it keeps going. Even after it's over, you will be doing a mental tango of all the information you have received and trying to sort out all the pieces. And trust me, there are pieces. If you go to watch this film to just watch a 90's flick, you're doing it wrong. You will probably find the movie a flop of just dark moments led by lies and deceit. (Which it really is). But to those who went to watch this film because we wanted to know why there was so much mixed hype about this 1999 film, we should have all noticed there were the smallest bits of puzzle pieces and the biggest amounts of twists that really made this film what it is.

I don't even like Matt Damon, I personally have a biased grudged towards the guy and his movies. But I'd have to say, it's tough to choose between his performances here and Good Will Hunting. He, along with the entire cast will tug at heart strings you never thought you had. There are the strings for romance, thrillers, and horror. These strings are the one's collecting dust and sometimes never see the light of day for a life time. It's rare to come across a film that seems to have everything and goes about it like it's nothing, like it doesn't even seem to care if you're watching or not, because it all is going to happen with or without you. It's truly it's own living, breathing, and dark entity.

Watch this film if you want a film that will bake in your brain for the days, weeks, maybe months to come. It's not to late to bring this movie back up into lunch-time conversation in the new century.

The Experiment (2001)

Must have missed the good parts?

[6/10 · 5 February 2010]

Christian Berkel came out to be the only reason I even tolerated this movie. The movie is about 'What if Germans did the Standford Prison Experiment'. Or something along those lines. I am still at a loss for words after seeing this a few days ago, so I will say this. If you're one of those people who can't tolerate a movie where the characters make asinine decisions for what seems to be the sake for the movement of plot, then you will hate this movie, as I did. Although I didn't hate it that much. There were some interesting parts that were interesting, however, the characters, on all sides, were just so unrealistic to me that this would simply never happen. I am not one of those people who yells out about unrealistic things. However, I do hate when characters are 1-dimensional and pretty much just play the role of bad-guy, anti-hero, and etc.

Just to give you a glimpse of what to expect out of the decisions you can look forward to in the film: If you were a lead professor in an experiment consisting of 20 human subjects and were making giant breakthroughs, would you take a day or two from your schedule to completely IGNORE your experiment/project? Well this guy does.

It's just stupid and in the end has no real conclusion.

Spartacus: The Red Serpent (2010) Season 1, Episode 1

We were wrong! We were so Wrong!

[2/10 · 24 January 2010]

That is - if you knew this show would suck, then you were right. But the lot of us seemed pretty pumped for this sack of crap.

I can't legitimately give this thing anything higher. This show is just horrible. Some guy said "If you watch UFC, you'll like this." This is false. Perhaps if you watch UFC and still watch WWE, yes, you will like this. But at the same time, you're too young to watch this show, let alone stay up that late. This show is like a parody of 300 and an extension of how horrible 10,000 BC is. Let's investigate.

The story takes place in Greece state, Thrace, where the Roman army requests help from the abused Tracians to repel the Gattai barbaric army. Some kid, who I am not even sure is the leader, but is certainly a horrible actor speaks up. The Roman Commander and the 'horrible actor' come to terms for the Thracian people to ally with the Roman Axillary so long as they extinguish the Gattai from the lands COMPLETELY. Now, this isn't uncommon for the Romans to agree to these things, however some of the following parts are not too accurate.

Needless to say the Romans betray the Thracians and decide to instead take the army to fight another army besides the Gattai. So the 'horrible actor' kills the Harald (issuing the orders) and decides to head off the Gattai army in hopes of stopping them before they can reach his city (which he already said was 3 days AHEAD of them, so how his small troop had a chance, is beyond me).

I'll stop there. But anyone that passed 10th grade world history will realize a lot of the things in the show are very inaccurate. You may be a person who likes to receive inaccurate things in television to 'increase the entertainment value'. However, I find sticking to reality of history is way more appealing than making your own garbage up.

As far as the ACTION-SEQUENCES, they are pretty brutal. Brutal in the sense they parody 300 to the point it's insulting and way past any point of general 'man-entertainment'. If having random slow-motion every 3 seconds is awesome to you, then please, watch this. But I liked 300 and thought that 300's slow motion was used in good taste. This slows down for EVERYTHING. To top it off, about a gallon of blood spews out of everyone every time (3 seconds) slow motion initiates. If you think this is cool after 20 times... Then I am afraid there is no hope for you.

To top it all off, no one seems to be touched by blood. The main guy, the 'horrible actor' has a massive gash on his back, but no blood is even coming from the cash or shows signs of ever bleeding. If that's not enough, this guys milks blood out of everyone around him and no one seems to be touched by blood. I was waiting for a slow motion sequence of the guy matrix-dodging the blood droplets.

In conclusion, I was hyped for this and was sorely disappointed. If you liked 300, Sin City, Gladiator, or any of those movies that had a good mix of surrealism, violence, characters, story, and realism (and where it counts: historical-accuracy), watch the first episode, just to laugh. Because we know it sucks. If you still wear those PJ's with connected socks and suck on your thumb while watching WWE, you're gonna wanna see this. But please. PLEASE. Ask permission from your parents first.

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

If you're looking for a recent film, get this.

[9/10 · 23 January 2010]

I don't understand how the ending of this film generated such an unpopular vote. This movie was fantastic. It's hard to compared this film because it involves so much. So for a non-spoiling synopsis: A man and his family are attacked at his house. With the father being left with a ravaged and murdered family, full knowing who the perpetrators are he is left with the leaky American Justice system who find the main assailant with a bargain of a maximum of 5 years in prison and the other man who did nothing but watch with the death penalty (which doesn't find him for another 10 years in the judicial system). The father (Gerard Butler) is left with no real conclusion or relief from the murderers and so for the next 10 years he plans.

The movie unfolds with Butler as a vigilante to then a very intelligent and thought out murderer. Much like SEVEN's Spacey. But without all the religious influence. Just pure vengeance. Gerard's bad-assness is much like Liam's TAKEN's character, but much more passive, but with the same end note: Pure vengeance. As the movie goes on you find yourself trying to figure out the end game to all of this, however, if you read the other reviews, the end is a bit lack-luster of what you would want, however it does end semi-realistic.

All in all, you have to be a bit dormant in the brain to not fully enjoy this movie and wanting to watch it again to see if you can catch the full ending of the movie. I'll give you a hint.

"Don't negotiate with criminals" or "Don't make exceptions for criminals". If you understand this, watch the movie again and you'll see that the end of the film made sense.

Enjoy.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Gripping: Action, Characters, Real. What else can you want?

[9/10 · 23 January 2010]

Not a ten; because I don't give out tens. Actually, I am almost positive I am going to eat those words, because I may have once before... Either way! This movie was amazing. (Perhaps not a ten because it's not exactly what I go for in films).

The movie is: About EOD (Emergency Ordnance Disposal). Pretty much bomb squads from the military. An undermanned special forces in the Army, Navy, etc. I know this first hand. (No, I was not EOD). EOD is undermanned is due to drop out or the more likely: Kick out ratio. People just can't cut it. So this is about a diverse sort of human being willing to risk it all to disarm bombs on a daily basis in Iraq (But also all over the world).

The movie doesn't go into the diverse or (simple) mechanics of disarming bombs, just the extravagance of disarming them with heart pumping stress of not just WILL THE BOMB GO OFF, but WILL INSURGENTS STRIKE WHILE DISARMING.

You join a bomb squad consisting of a motley crew (Wildman who disarms the bombs, and two subordinates of a strong hearted rational sarge, with a confused and scared/traumatized specialist). This crew isn't to develop some contrast of a 'weaker' link who sets back the team. Instead it's about their development and wild rides of the day to day job of an EOD squad.

But if you're weary of a movie that drags on with multiple bomb-diffusions, the characters if not enough to make you watch this and you want a good army-action scene, there is a sniper-stand off that makes the movie more intriguing. And you're still juvenile to the thought. The sniper rifle used is a Barret 50 cal. (Don't ask me why they had a 50 cal and not the standard issued m21). Either way it's amazing.

In conclusion the movie is a great story of true stories and realistic lives in Hostile Iraq. The bomb scenes are very gripping and develop well instead of slow and boring. The characters are already unfolded, so their development is only even more climactic. Also, Jeremy Renner is an amazing starring role and is upsetting to see he hasn't done more movies in the past as the hero. Damned SWAT. Check this out if you're into modern-warfare films or wanted a more enthralling JARHEAD film. (Not to say Jarhead sucked, I liked it a lot, but I also read the book). If you don't like movies involving modern warfare that involves shooting from the hip and unrealistic Iraqi warfare, avoid this at all costs.

Quarantine (2008)

Watch the original before this.

[6/10 · 21 January 2010]

If you didn't know. This film is another American-Remake. That's right. Once again, American underlings of the film-persuasion lacked any real originality or motivation to write anything of their own, so they chose to massacre an existing one. That isn't to directly say this movie is horrible. But the strange thing you may notice if you educate yourself is that the ORIGINAL had a plot, where as this one, sadly, comes out with little to NO plot.

Now if you like the common films that have no regard to your intelligence or sense of accomplishment that one can get from watching a good film. (Like 'One Missed Call' 'The Ring' 'The Eye' etc). Then you will think I have no clue what I am talking about. However, if you're not a dolt, you will agree and wonder why this movie delivered the higher budget film, but removed the plot.

The film is 85% it's original. However it does take some originality in developing the 'infection' earlier on in the plot, however you really don't get any explanation on much anything. (It's like they teased you with it. Although the tease being a very weak attempt at a conclusion).

Honestly, you cannot grasp the entirety of this film without watching Rec. The same can't be said inversely, but both are enjoyable to watch.

In conclusion if you just want a drive-by horror. Go ahead. If you actually want to have something to talk about with your friends, get Rec and this one and watch them back to back with the gang and make it your own discussion.

REC (2007)

Proof that true Thrillers are created beyond the US Borders

[8/10 · 20 January 2010]

I have disliked Horror and Scary films for a long time, probably around my very beginnings of my teenage years. I believe it is because the 'slasher' films made up the going fad for the past several decades of American Film. It wasn't until years later where I discovered Zombie films where I began to just justify my horror collection as ZOMBIE only. However after even more years, I was introduced to foreign films. And better yet, foreign horror flicks.

Non-Japanese-Horror to be specific. And this proves the Latin-community truly knows how to creep out it's viewers and still come out with a PLOT in the end. I know. A plot + horror? That's not proper English edict, but this film does it well.

The movie takes on the Amero-unpopular camcorder perspective and does it right. (That's right, pot shots on Cloverfield). The acting is prime as well. I remember watching the first ten minutes and commenting on how real the people were. Perhaps the unfamiliar faces helped, but all the same, you can trick your more gullible friends into believing this is a true-story. Seriously. It wouldn't be difficult.

Is the film a Zombie film? Many people have vaguely put it as one. And as a unofficiando of Zombie films, I will say it can rightfully have the title as a zombie flick.

If none of this answered your questions. Just remember. This film delivers on a 98% on the realism scale as far as personalities, reactions, and gore. Giving just enough for creativeness such as "Jumping in just in time to gore a man's throat open". If you want to see a good horror film that actually comes out with a plot, or just a good film that will give you the creeps that will last a few tens of minutes (or more?), get this film and show it to your friends.

And on a final note. Yes, duh, this film is better than Quarantine. However, both are worth checking out, and watching Quarantine afterward will make you appreciate Rec even more.

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Uhh, we all know this isn't real right?

[2/10 · 19 January 2010]

Two! Only out of my biased lust for Milla. It is a one. The lowest I ever gave a movie I think. Maybe I am being a bit harsh, but I am going to try and stick to my guns as I write this one. I usually end up changing it by the end of the synopsis and ratings.

The movie is a documentary, a fake one, but a well done one. Well it's actually a documentary plus the pseudo-UNSOLVED MYSTERY'S like dramatizations done by Milla and Patton. It often goes into duel-screens and at times multi-screens of both the dramatization and the 'actual footage'. They do a good job. A much better job than that of: The Last Broadcast (Kudos to those who toughed that one through till the end).

Overall the story telling and everything was great. I enjoyed it all the way through till the end of the credits, all the way back home, and then I finally decided to ruin it by wiki'ing. Now I am not sure if this counts as a spoiler... But as I have previously said: None of this is real.

This was a major downer as I am a huge fan of the paranormal and aliens and all that jazz and the writing drove some big parts of it home, however instead of coming out full-faced as fiction, it attempts to sell itself as fact and once you find out the real-cheese of it, it generally becomes the biggest disappointment film of the year. (Yea, I am going that far with it, because it was a good movie that flopped dead in my hands).

So if you just want to see a cool little movie that drives with the growing in popularity of 'crappy cam documentaries', then see this. Or if you saw Last Broadcast and want an apology, this will suffice in some ways. If you want to see Milla semi-naked, sorry, this is one of the few movies she stars in and keeps the bulk of her clothes on. (Insert heartache).

So in conclusion, the movie is better than a 2, but when you find out the movie is fiction, it drops considerably.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

No motivation for characters, plot, or suspense.

[4/10 · 19 January 2010]

I really struggled with this movie. I remember seeing the previews on TV get progressively more in depth with the story. It starting out as a "Murder Mystery" to then a paranormal trip of "we already know who done it". And the paranormal side sort of intrigued me and was a large reason I even went to go see it. I was also interested in how a story like this would develop when from the get-go you already know who murders her.

Needless to say, Peter Jackson makes no attempts at directing a movie that actually develops into a plot. It's a horrible plot that has no real direction and seems to attempt at tying loose ends in 'the after life'. So if you're going to see a suspenseful thriller, or a movie where there is some sort mystery, then go elsewhere. This movie doesn't offer much. In fact, it reminded me a lot of the book/movie: What Dreams Are Made Of. A very good movie.

Peter Jackson seems to attempt to be artistic in this film and settles with imagery over anything else. There are some very cool aesthetic scenes, but really, they do nothing to drive the story. Not to mention they do nothing to develop a character. I just don't Jackson is cut out for Planet Earth. Perhaps he should just stick with Middle Earth and let the proper directors work out the realistic movies. He can have his orcs.

In conclusion, this movie was pretty bad. The acting and everything was good, but you're really left wondering what the purpose of the whole movie was. In fact in the end. If you don't really hate this movie, you're just a Jackson-fanboy and should just be thankful your parents still buy you movie tickets.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Finally, a movie done right

[9/10 · 28 October 2009]

Everyone kept talking about this movie for the past months. About how some people have already seen it on it's original release date or how they are going to go see it. And the talk about it was just constant. I am not a fan of scary movies, because I am easily scared (or at least I think I am). So I held off on this movie for some time. Not to mention whenever I asked what sorta movie it was they always compared it to the Blair Witch, which I thought only had one good part (the ending scene).

I finally saw it though (with the alternate ending, I have no clue what the real ending is. I saw the Spielberg suggested ending). This movie was amazing. They did pretty much everything right. The scenes were perfect for escalation, the length of the movie was just right. The way it was shot was very well done and everything seemed to have it's purpose.

One thing I loved about this movie is it pretty much proved to me that my scary movie theory is correct. And that is that scary moments in films make it all that less believable because it's trying to hard. But creepiness and suspense is really what gets at me and has a much lasting effect. This movie has NO SCARY PARTS. It's all just very very disturbing and creepy.

As you watch the movie you'll be wondering, "WTF, how did they shoot that?!" And as the nights continue in the movie, it just gets more and more disturbing. This movie is probably the best 'scary' movie I have seen in a long long time. You must go see this movie!

Orphan (2009)

Nothing great, but not horrible.

[6/10 · 28 October 2009]

Alright, this is the FIRST time IMDb actually failed me. This movie is not a 7.2. I think what happened here is some kids found out how to use IMDb ratings from their parents and began to soak up some bandwidth with horribly proportioned reviews. So let's set the record straight.

This movie was not 7.2. I consider something from IMDb with a 7+ to be pretty amazing. My own score is a 6, because it's nothing I'd go out of my own wallet to see again or really enjoy watching twice. However if a buddy wants to turn it on during a boring point of the day or night, it's not gonna make you want to rip your own face off.

First off let's just state the obvious. This movie has NO SCARY PARTS in it. I like to think I am very easily scared. I didn't jump at all. I looked to my brother and asked 'who the hell said this was scary?' and he replied, 'I think it's supposed to be suspenseful.' Wrong. I was more so laughing and commentating through the bulk of the movie.

Second Off, this isn't a rip off of the Omen or the good son. The ending of this movie is what made it jump from a 4 to a 6. If you see the ending coming, good for you. I didn't see it coming (although I wasn't getting to involved with the story) and it was a pretty awesome revelation.

The characters were also well done. I enjoyed every character and each one served their purpose. This movie also doesn't give the heroes a butt ton of ex-machina (like most movies seem to have plenty in stock). Nope, they generally do it to it on their own without the help of crappy writers, which make the more tense situations, more believable.

Either way, this movie isn't all that, but it certainly isn't horrible either.