Beseler's Movie Review

Ratings
10 = If you don't watch this movie, your life will be incomplete
9 = You should run people over trying to get this movie
8 = Definitely worth postponing studying to watch
7 = You can feel ok about paying full price for this
6 = If it's in the cheap theatre, go to it
5 = If you watch this, I hope you were just too lazy to find something better
4 = A baseball game MIGHT be more fun to watch
3 = You should be counting the bumps on your ceiling instead
2 = Even MST3K won't spoof this movie
1 = This movie probably stars Shaq or Paris Hilton

---

Transformers

Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, and Jon Voight

Transformers recently came out on DVD and I’m sure I will own it eventually. It has a few big-name stars in it, but, thankfully, it doesn’t make the movie all about that. It throws a few elements into the mix that I could have lived without, but I’m even willing to overlook that. Elements such as the comic-relief-intended interactions with the parents that just end up time-wasting and awkward, or the cheesy love story between Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox [aside here to insert the fact that, while the love story isn’t needed, Megan Fox happens to be extremely easy on the eyes]. The writers also didn’t grace the movie with an abundance of wonderful dialogue. So why have I given it a 9 out of 10? Three words: Special Effects Action.

The transformations alone merit at least a 7 on the rating scale; the phenomenal manner in which the special effects team digitally created the toys from many people’s childhoods. Even something as trivial as the speech of the Autobots matches up [another aside to insert the fact that they, apparently, got the original voices of the Transformers from the cartoon show for the movie]. The plot of the movie moves it along and is just enough to justify the great action and effects that are interlaid, combining everything to make an incredibly enjoyable movie.

After thought: the first Camaro that Bumblebee shows himself as would be far superior to the new one, provided, of course, that the first one was in prime condition.

Overall Rating = 9

Stranger than Fiction

Starring: Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Thompson, and Queen Latifah

This movie was one of the only Will Ferrell movies I have seen that struck me as more than just a dumb comedy. Prior to seeing the film, I had heard talk of this film being Ferrell’s attempt at a more serious comedy, much the same as Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This movie went beyond Eternal Sunshine though, and Ferrell’s character was more human and more relatable than Carrey’s was. In my mind, Harold Crick is definitely the most impactful character Ferrell has ever done. He takes his character from merely obsessive and regimented to unique and resonant.

Harold Crick (Ferrell) is an IRS agent who also turns out to be the main character in a novel being written by Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson), a very successful author of tragic fiction who has writer’s block and is being assisted by Penny Escher (Queen Latifah). His daily routine is set in stone, vigorously regulated by his wristwatch with little or no variation at any time. He begins hearing Eiffel’s voice in his head, narrating his life as he is going about everyday activities. Shortly after beginning to hear the voice, he draws an audit of a small-shop baker (Gyllenhaal) who has decided to only pay 78 percent of her taxes as a statement against the government and its division of tax revenues. While trying to deal with a possibly-developing love interest that he is auditing, he is still trying to figure out why he is hearing this voice in his head. So he goes to Professor Jules Hilbert (Hoffman), a literature professor, to try and figure out what kind of book he is in and who the narrator could be.

There are obvious elements of humor in the film, including a comparison of comedies and tragedies in literature. These elements work very well, designed to accent the dramatic themes of the work, not simply add comic relief. Along the comedic lines, Hoffman brilliantly times his character’s contributions, supporting Ferrell just as well as Latifah supports Thompson.

I walked out of this film actually thinking about the ideas that were presented. That’s a statement I usually can’t make when I watch newer movies. The movie talks about dull, mindless routines and about escaping from the ruts that are created by following them. A small change that catalyzes a step in a new direction.

Overall Rating = 9.5

Ok, first of all, I would like to say that I loved the Chronicles of Narnia novels when I was younger, so I was looking forward to the movie adaptation. Yes, the BBC did an adaptation of the books in the late 80’s and early 90’s but it honestly wasn’t very good. The acting was poor and the costuming was horrible. Narnia’s costuming was definitely a high point in this latest movie, as was the make-up (which they won an Oscar for). While the movie did move very quickly from scene to scene, it was still enjoyable. Much like the Lord of the Rings, the movie veered away from the text a significant amount, but you have to recognize that movies just can’t always follow the text. Mr. Tumnus was done extremely well by James McAvoy, he was exactly what you would have expected if you’ve read the books. The White Witch was very cheesy and not very well done, in my opinion. They also didn’t do enough with the White Witch’s wand and freezing creatures and people. The fight scenes were well-choreographed, and the visual effects were astounding, but the fights seemed to be fruitless when applying their usefulness to the plot. I don’t have a problem with the movie being geared more to the younger audience, especially as the books were created for children initially as well. However, the books still applied wonderfully to adults, which the movie lacks at times. More adult battles and a better adaptation of key dialogue scenes, especially the Professor’s speeches, which were generally omitted from the film. There were many changes I would make if I had the power, but I still accept this adaptation as respectable.
Overall Rating = 7.5

Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong took the latest Hollywood craze of redoing old movies and actually did it the right way. As opposed to such movies as The Shaggy Dog and Yours, Mine, and Ours, this remake takes the classic story of Kong and turns it into the vision that it should have been. The CGI effects are stunning throughout the entire film, especially the brilliance that is Kong himself. The characters are developed and backgrounded sufficiently so that the audience feels connected to the main characters. Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Adrien Brody star as the beauty, the director, and the writer of the film that Carl Denham (Black) is trying to create. To that end, he hires a ship to take them all to Skull Island, the home island of Kong. It is also home to a freaky tribe of natives. Andy Serkis lends his expression and emotion to the animation of Kong, giving the huge ape a more human countenance while the special effects created by WETA give him the most realistic version of a gigantic ape that has yet graced the big screen. As a huge plus, Kong actually walks around on all fours, with movements and the grace of a real gorilla. For those who don't know the story of King Kong, it is a great story of human character, beauty and love. The film is over 3 hours long, but as opposed to a movie like Titanic, this one keeps you entertained and doesn't make you look at your watch to see how long you've been there.
Overall Rating = 8

Saw and Saw 2 are a couple of my favorite horror movies. Initially, I was reluctant to see the first movie as I hadn't heard great things about it. I decided to watch it anyway, as my former roommate owned it. I'm glad I did. The first movie centers around two men locked in a room (Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell). They have been drugged, captured, and chained to huge pipes. They have been provided a saw that is not strong enough to cut the chains, but strong enough to cut through a human leg. A tape-recorded voice tells them that to be set free, they must kill the other person. Dr. Gordon's (Elwes) family is also part of the equation, as they are to die if he doesn't kill Adam (Whannell) before time has elapsed. The plot twists and turns, making you second-guess who the killer is, what's going to happen, etc. Danny Glover also turns in a well-played-if-short-screen-time role as a cop who is no longer on the force but who is obsessed with finding the "Jigsaw Killer." Whannell also helped write the story and the screenplay for the film.

Saw 2 is actually better than the first, but it is my strong recommendation that you watch the initial film before the second, it will supplement and make the impact of the second much stronger. Jigsaw returns in the second, but this time there is a whole room full of strangers that all have one common thread that is discovered, tying them all together. They have been captured and locked in a room that is just one of a variety of booby-trapped rooms in a house. The "participants" are told that they must escape the house within 2 hours or a lethal nerve gas will take over their bodies and kill them. The son of a detective is one of the people captured. The detective and police force find Jigsaw, but Jigsaw forces Detective Mathews (Donnie Wahlberg) to talk with him to try and discover where the house is located and how to save his son. This one is a little more gruesome, a little more bloody, a little more twisted, and a little better than the original. I strongly recommend watching these movies, and the upcoming Saw 3 should be something to look forward to as well.
Overall Rating: Saw - 8, Saw 2 - 9

The final film in the Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter series of movies is Hannibal, again starring Anthony Hopkins as the twisted doctor, but with Julianne Moore taking on the role of Clarice Starling. While I am one to always favor continuity in movie roles, Moore does a commendable job of portraying Starling, even though the accent she attempts is muddled at times. The real beauty of the movie is not in the directing or script, but the story itself. I would say the story ranks 2nd to Silence of the Lambs, but is better than Red Dragon, even if the film itself is a little lacking. The story follows Clarice attempting to track down Hannibal Lecter, even as a detective in Florence tries to capture him for the bounty amount put forth by Mason Verger (excellently portrayed by Gary Oldman. Mason Verger is a wealthy man who was a victim of Dr. Lecter's manipulation and who has spent years acquiring artifacts having to do with Lecter as well as attempting to capture Lecter for retribution. Starling is assisted in her pursuit by Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), a chauvinistic agent who seems to only get in her way. Dr. Lecter resumes his torment of Starling with letters and clues to his whereabouts, but again seems to stay one step ahead of her. Much of the movie seems almost to the point of overacting, but could be a result of the script adaptation of the story. If you are a fan of the Harris novels or earlier movies, this is a movie you should watch, but realize that it probably isn't going to live up to your expectations, especially if you have read the novel.
Overall Rating = 7

Ok, continuing my review of Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter series I come to The Silence of the Lambs starring Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster. Without a doubt, I feel as if this is the best of the three films. It is focused on Foster's character, Special Agent Clarice Starling, an agent responsible for finding and capturing a murderer who goes by the name of Buffalo Bill. As she is stuck without leads, she goes to the asylum to speak with Dr. Lecter, hoping he can aid her in her psychological profile of the killer. Hopkins brings Lecter alive, creating a persona that is impossible to loathe, even when you see the horror and madness that is inherant there. The first time I watched this movie I found myself liking Hannibal Lecter, something that is a little troubling as he is obviously a murderer and cannibal himself. Lecter helps Starling with the stipulation that she must tell him pieces of information about herself and her past, something Starling reluctantly agrees to. I won't give away any more of the movie, but this movie is incredibly worthy of its Best Picture Academy Award. Hopkins and Foster are brilliant in their portrayals as well, rightfully earning them their respective Best Actor and Actress Academy Awards. If you are one to judge a film by its awards, this picture has won them in spades, if you are not, then just watch this film for the pure psychological terror and mystery.
Overall Rating = 10

Since I was struck by an urge to watch Hannibal last evening, thanks in no small part to a Hannibal fanatic (or at least a very dedicated fan), I figured I would put the three Hannibal Lecter films up here for perusal. The first in the series is based upon the book Manhunter (all books written by Thomas Harris), that was also titled Red Dragon in some areas. The original film version of this book, Manhunter, starred Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter, a role that was taken and perfected by Anthony Hopkins. The main difference between the 1986 film and the 2002 version, though, is that Ted Tally is a MUCH better screenwriter than Michael Mann. The cast, as well, is amazing. Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, and Ralph Fiennes play the three lead roles: Hannibal Lecter, Will Graham, and Francis Dolarhyde. Graham is a retired FBI agent who captured Hannibal Lecter. He is forced out of retirement to help track down a serial killer known as the "Tooth Fairy," Francis Dolarhyde. To do this, he has to talk to Lecter, the only person who may have valuable insight into the case. However, in contrast to Silence of the Lambs, Lecter plays a significantly smaller role than either Graham or Dolarhyde. Norton portrays Graham excellently, but the best performance of the film is by Fiennes. For overall villians, I don't know that there are many who can match up to Hannibal Lecter, but Francis Dolarhyde peaks at the same height of pyschologically and mentally-disturbing individuals. This film comes dangerously close to matching Silence..., something the original version of the film couldn't even come close to doing.
Overall Rating = 8.5

Ok, the second of Tim Smith/Mikey Vacha's movie suggestions I have chosen to tackle is Showgirls. Elizabeth Berkley stars in this "hilarious sleezefest" as many a critic termed it. She plays Nomi, a young woman who wants to make it in Vegas, and to do that she ends up working as an exotic dancer. The plot centers around her attempts to move up the "ladder of success" in the exotic dancer world, even to the point that she must sabotage the lead dancers to move herself up higher in the ranks. Now, to be fair, there probably isn't a guy in his early to mid-twenties now who didn't desperately want to see this movie when it came out in 1995, especially since it was rated NC-17 and starred "Jessy" from Saved By The Bell. For those of us who did see it: yes, we saw Elizabeth Berkley nude, along with a large host of others, and yes, we saw what could only be really classified as a softcore porn trying to disguise itself by putting together a paper-thin story whose only appeal was trying to tempt teenage boys with an abundance of nudity. But, to be fair, if you're looking for a decent amount of nudity, a see-through plot, and no other redeeming value at all in a movie, by all means sit down with Jessy Spano and enjoy this far-from-mediocre wanna-be-softcore-porn flick. As for me, in the words of "Weird Al" Yankovic, "I'd rather rip out my intestines with a fork..."
Overall Rating = 1.5

Well, at the request of both Mikey and Tim Smith, this is the first of numerous "horrible" movie reviews to come. The movie is an adaptation of a comic book that wasn't good to begin with, and after what appears to be very little effort, an equally useless and futile movie was developed. So if you're putting together what looks to be a horrible movie idea and need to have a pretty face/body to play the lead female, who do you turn to? Well, in this case, Pamela Anderson. The movie revolves around our heroine, an owner of a night club called the Hammerhead in Steel Harbor, the last "free city" left in the country. She also moonlights as a bounty hunter. The plot (and I use the word loosely), focuses on Barb Wire attempting to help get a scientist across American borders through the use of a special set of contact lenses. The acting is horrendous and the story is laughable, which is further compounded by the blatant attempt at interesting males through the various scantily-clad scenes throughout this hour-and-a-half travesty.
Overall Rating = 1

I went to The Fantastic Four expecting to see a comic book movie that wasn't all that great, so, in that respect, I wasn't disappointed. I'll just touch on the highlights (and lowlights) of the film in my mind for you. The casting was adequate, if not great. Jessica Alba is pretty easy on the eyes, of course, and she did an alright job as Sue Storm, but it did seem that they "dummied" up the character to better mesh into the romantic theme. Tragic, but foreseeable. Reed Richards and Johnny Storm (Ioan Gruffudd & Chris Evans) were appropriate choices and fulfilled their roles respectably. I was a little leary of casting Michael Chiklis as The Thing, but he was surprisingly entertaining in the role. Unfortunately, I still thought a CGI "Thing" would have looked and performed a little better than the suit that they designed for Chiklis to wear. The writing was a little weak, but I consoled myself with the idea that the sequel will be better. My reasoning on that is that they have now introduced the characters, they have done the requisite origin explanation and set up the romance between Sue and Reed, as well as introduced one of the best villians in Marvel history, Dr. Doom. I have great (albeit perhaps misplaced) faith that the sequel will perform better and be a more true-to-the-fans movie now that all the BS is out of the way.
Overall Rating = 5.5

Wedding Crashers is absolutely one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson do a great job keeping the comedic flow moving along and throwing in a great working chemistry as well. The movie is along the same vein as Old School and Anchorman, and delivers just as many jabs and quips as the aforementioned. Vaughn and Wilson play lifelong friends Jeremy Grey and John Beckwith, a couple of mediators who crash weddings trying to hook up with attractive, single women. The love interests get thrown in when they crash the wedding of Secretary Cleary's (Christopher Walken) daughter and end up getting invited back to the Cleary's lake home. Chaos ensues, of course, with great comedic bits thrown in by Mrs. Cleary (Jane Seymour aka Dr. Quinn), Sack Lodge (Bradley Cooper aka Will Tippin from Alias), and a special appearance by a familar face that I will leave unmentioned. While the ending is obviously cheesy and predictable, the rest of the movie more than makes up for that shortcoming. Would I see it again in the theater? In a heartbeat.
Overall Rating = 10

So I've seen Batman Begins twice in the theater already, and I have to say that it is the best Batman movie by far. Christian Bale does a nice job of portraying both a young Bruce Wayne and Batman. Thankfully the new Batman suit is much better than the other suits used in the Batman movies, especially as it doesn't have the "bat-nipples" and "bat-bulge"! Christopher Nolan directs the film wonderfully, showing us the darkness that is inherent in the whole Batman concept. The other primary members of the cast contributed greatly to the outline of the movie as well, Morgan Freeman (Fox), Michael Caine (Alfred), Gary Oldman (Gordon), and Liam Neeson (Ducard). There is plenty of action, a little subtle romantic line of course, and an expanding plot, that, while somewhat predictable, doesn't detract from the overall effect of the story. Christopher Nolan has successfully taken Batman and turned the crumbling franchise around, and finally given all the Batman fans out there something to be happy about, and hopefully any upcoming sequels will be right in line with this movie.
Overall Rating = 9

What movie review page would be complete without reviewing the biggest film of 2005? Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was released after the standard three-year pause in-between movies, and Lucas managed to save himself from the ridicule that accompanied The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. To begin with, Ewan McGregor did a great job of portraying Obi-Wan Kenobi, effectively bridging the personality gap between the early Obi-Wan and the Alec-Guiness-portrayed Ben Kenobi. While I didn't agree with Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker, in Episode III he also redeemed himself a little, especially as the darker Anakin as he turns to the Dark Side of the Force. The movie opens with a great display of special effects, as Anakin and Obi-Wan are piloting through a battle, attempting to save Chancellor Palpatine. From there on the special effects will blow away any expectations that you could have. There are a couple key points that make this movie such a success (especially as compared to Episode I and II): 1) Fight scenes: if you're a fan of space and land battles, you'll see a few great special effects scenes, but of course in the Star Wars movies, what does everyone want to see? Light saber battles! And who do you want to see fight those battles? Everyone who does in this film...Anakin & Obi-Wan VS Count Dooku, Anakin & Obi-Wan VS General Grievous, Mace Windu VS Darth Sidious (Emperor Palpatine), Yoda VS Darth Sidious, and Obi-Wan VS Anakin. 2) The answers to the questions that plague Star Wars fans: Anakin turning to the Dark Side, the clones being turned from allies of the Jedi to the Imperial Storm Troopers, the destruction of the Jedi, the exile of Yoda, the separation of Luke and Leia, the Republic falling under the control of Palpatine and becoming the Empire, and Anakin's resurrection as Darth Vader. While the movie answers all these questions and does a commendable job of filling in the gap that was left between II and IV, the plot does feel a little thin at times. For pure entertainment this movie is, by far, the best of the three prequel films. To be honest, I was a little disappointed with the abruptness that Lucas pushed the story along, specifically Anakin's "fall from grace" but I understand that he needed to try and fit what should have been 4 hours of story into a 2 1/2 hour film. I could go on and on about the specifics of the film, but if you really want to hear more about it, start a conversation with me sometime. My last recommendation concerning the Star Wars films is to watch them in the order that they were released: IV, V, VI, I, II, III.
Overall Rating = 8.5

Douglas Adams wrote a great series of books called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and now he went and helped adapt a screenplay for the big screen. So, of course, I had to go and see it on opening day. Granted, as a side note, there was a made-for-TV mini-series adaptation made in '81, but for those not old enough to know about or have seen it, this movie is now out. One of the best descriptions of Douglas Adams' work that I have seen is "It's like Monty Python in space." If you've read the books, you know what I mean, the pure, unadulterated chaos and hilarity that abounds both in the books and in this movie. The casting choices were acceptable, Mos Def (Left-Ear from The Italian Job) plays Ford Prefect much better than one might have expected, and using Alan Rickman (The Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood, Professor Snape from Harry Potter) as the voice of Marvin, the manic depressive robot was superb. The FX used throughout the film were well-done, but one of the most impressive aspects was Jim Henson's creature work for the Vogons. There were moments that were edited and stretched away from the path the novels lead a reader down, but overall it remained true and the changes that were most prevalent are easy to understand in the scheme of making a movie adaptation of a science-fiction series. To use one of my most well-known comments, if you go to see this movie and don't laugh at it, your sense of humor has tragically died.
Overall Rating = 9

I'd heard some pretty good opinions of Sin City, so I figured I should definitely go see it. As it turned out, it was one of the best movies I've seen. The storyline is composed of three different lines that end up interweaving eventually, based on Frank Miller's graphic novels. The main characters in the stories are Marv (Mickey Rourke), Hartigan (Bruce Willis), and Dwight (Clive Owen). Marv is trying to avenge the murder of a woman he was with, Hartigan is a cop who got wrongfully imprisoned, and Dwight is trying to cover up the death of a hero cop in a shady part of town. Rourke's character is incredibly entertaining, especially his tendency to look down upon any authority. The storylines are well-written and very well adapted from the graphic novels, but even with that, the most redeeming quality of the movie is in the direction. Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez directed it with special guest direction by Quentin Tarantino. The flashes between storylines were seamless, and the occasional comic-book-like shadow scenes very powerful. The most interesting part of the direction was their use of color in a mostly black and white film to emphasize emotion throughout. There is no good reason to not see this movie, in my opinion!
Overall Rating = 10

The Life of David Gale was a movie I watched initially because it starred Kevin Spacey, an actor I happen to respect for his work. The movie itself is setup as a flashback-oriented story, concerning the conviction of David Gale, an activist that has fought against the death penalty. He has been convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a fellow activist and sits on death row. Kate Winslet plays Bitsey Bloom, a reporter who is sent to report on Gale's story. She ends up searching through clues and investigating the events of the murder with hints dropped by Gale. She begins to believe that he may not have committed the crime which he was charged with, so she races against the clock to try and uncover the truth. I appreciated the method that the story unfolded and the plot twists that were thrown in, but the political message concerning the death penalty was somewhat weak. As the movie goes, it will keep you interested and keep you guessing (at least a little). The characters develop decently throughout, but still remain a trifle ambiguous, which, in this case, adds to the mystery of the story. Even in the slower areas of the film there is an energy and tension that keeps things moving along nicely.
Overall Rating = 7

So I ended up watching The Grudge the other evening. This was an American remake of the Japanese film Ju-on, and it was done by the same director, so it did keep a lot of the legitimacy of the original. Sarah Michelle Gellar stars as the young caretaker who gets assigned to help an old woman who has just moved there with her son and his wife. The house that they have moved into was the scene of dark happenings in the past, however, and as a result, there are ghosts from that event in the house. The curse that lies upon the house is one that supposedly kills all those who interfere. I went into this movie hoping to be really scared by it. I wasn't all that scared, but one thing I definitely enjoyed was the fact that the movie went for the scary edge as opposed to simply pursuing the startling images that movies like White Noise have done. The storyline itself is somewhat predictable, yet interesting, and the little kid that you've doubtless seen in the previews for this movie is every bit as messed up and freaky-weird as you think he will be. If you're in the mood for this genre of movie, you could do worse than to watch this.
Overall Rating = 6

*I received a request from Scott Fisher to review a couple of movies he really likes, so after a short absence from the movie review page, I'm back. Sorry about the late reply getting these up.*

The first of the two requests was for Napoleon Dynamite, a movie that glimpses the life of a nerdy high school student as he lives his everyday life and tries to help his friend, Pedro, win the student body presidency. The movie is actually refreshing in its approach to comedy, it takes a real-life situation and doesn't need to add foul language, nudity, or sex (something that a lot of comedies do now-a-days) to fulfill its mission. That being said, I didn't like the movie very much. It has potential to be funny for people, and I know a lot of people who really enjoy it, but for me it didn't have that effect. Maybe the biggest reason that I didn't like it too much was that the mannerisms, the appearance, and almost everything else about Napoleon reminded me too much of the way things were in high school for someone that I'm related to. A lot of people would look at that aspect and would be able to laugh harder because of it, but for whatever reason I'm not one of those people. I will probably never watch this movie again if I have a choice, but this is obviously an incredibly subjective viewpoint. From an objective view, I would recommend that you take the time and at least start watching it, you'll most likely know in the first 10 minutes of the movie whether you're going to like the rest of it or not.
Overall Rating = 4

The second movie, Garden State, has quickly become one of my favorite movies ever. It has a great beginning, as we see Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) sitting calmly on a plane as everyone around him screams and panics while the plane is crashing. There is a look of pure apathy on his face that transfers with him to a bedroom scene, the room all in white, where Largeman lies there listening to his father leaving a message on his machine telling him that his mother has passed away the night before. As we are introduced to Largeman, it's easy to see that he is just floating through life with no real direction and no convictions. While at home, he meets Sam (Natalie Portman in a wonderful performance) at the local hospital where he goes to get his headaches checked. He and Sam get to know each other throughout the next 4 days, during which Largeman decides that he's not going to take his meds anymore. It's easy to see the transformation that Largeman undergoes, as he actually starts to enjoy parts of his life. The movie delivers a powerful message through the illustration of drug dependence (whether it's Largeman's anti-depressants, Sam's epileptic medicines, or the ecstasy and coke that are used at the parties back home), but the main point that it makes is not to let life pass you by, but rather live your life in whatever way makes you happy.
Overall Rating = 10

Since I enjoyed Meet the Parents so much, I figured I better go see Meet the Fockers. While it wasn't quite on par with the first, this sequel was much more satisfying than the likes of Caddyshack 2 or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2. Ben Stiller is back as Gaylord Focker of course, as well as the rest of the Byrnes family from the original, and are joined by Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand in the roles of the Fockers. If you're a fan of the awkward, sometimes-embarassing humor from Meet the Parents, you'll enjoy the cringe-inducing situations that Stiller frequently gets himself into once more. Hoffman plays a stay-at-home-dad while Streisand is a sex therapist specializing in elderly couples. While the interaction between Stiller and De Niro is right on track with the first, Hoffman and De Niro also add another male element to the movie.
Overall Rating = 7

If you like Will Ferrell, there's no reason why you shouldn't love Anchorman. In fact, the more times you watch it, the better it will be. It tells the story of Ron Burgundy (Ferrell), an anchorman in the 70's during the male-dominated news-team era. The news team, consisting of Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ Kind (David Koechner), and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) provides massive doses of manic comic relief, with an emphasis on Carell's character. Christina Applegate plays Veronica Corningstone, a woman news reporter that wants to break through into the news world as an anchor, as well as Burgundy's love interest. The movie is also splashed with cameo appearances that could have been overdone, but seemed to work out well, including Ben Stiller, Tim Robbins, Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn, and Jack Black. If you're looking to have a good laugh, watch this movie, and if you're looking to have an even better laugh, watch it again.
Overall Rating = 7

Ocean's 12 was a good movie, in my opinion. I thoroughly enjoyed the first movie as well, and so I went into this one expecting good things. Despite what I had heard from some sources, I wasn't disappointed. The movie adopts an entirely different method of camera work than the first, and at times it is erratic and jumpy, especially at quick movement sequences. I think it adds a sense of reality to the picture, so I don't view it as a negative, but I realize that many people will be upset about it, just as many people criticized Gladiator for it's camera work during the battles. Regardless, the plot is pretty obvious to all who have seen the previews or the first film. It centers around Ocean's group of thieves that stole $160 million from Terry Benedict's (Andy Garcia) casino. Benedict has found the group with a little help from a thief named the "Night Fox", a thief who views himself as the best in the world. Ocean's group must find a way to come up with $97 million to make up the difference in what they don't have to pay back Benedict, so they go to work in Europe. The plot twists and turns a little, remaining pretty predictable for the most part, and of course it's easy to figure out who's going to win in the end. The interesting parts come in the explanations and flashbacks throughout that walk the viewer through the methods through which everything was accomplished.
Overall Rating = 8

I rented Dodgeball when it came out last Tuesday, and I have to say I was entertained. It's the "underdog" story about Average Joe's gym, run by Peter La Fleur (Vince Vaughn), trying to come up with the $50,000 that he owes the bank so that he doesn't lose the gym to White Goodman (Ben Stiller), the owner of Globo-Gym. To do this, they enter the International Dodgeball competition in Las Vegas. Ben Stiller's character is obviously the focal point of the comic nature in this film, with solid support by Vince Vaughn, Rip Torn, Christine Taylor, and Stephen Root ("I believe you have my stapler"). The cameo appearances also add a nice laugh to the movie. If you're looking for a decent comedy and you like the comic antics of Ben Stiller and the dry humor of Vince Vaughn, you should watch it.
Overall Rating = 7

With the release of The Bourne Supremacy this Tuesday, I figured a small review was due. I enjoyed this movie just as much as I liked The Bourne Identity. It continues the story of Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) as he is forced to return to his former life after an assassin is sent to the little village he was living in. Where The Bourne Identity veered slightly away from the book, The Bourne Supremacy goes way askew, so if you're expecting to have the movies follow the books, you probably won't want to watch it. The camera work is also a little sketchy, as it is shaky and moves around quite a bit, no doubt trying to represent a different view.
Overall Rating = 7

I sat at home the other evening and watched Hero, the latest effort by the director of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Jet Li stars as Nameless in this movie, set in pre-unified China, two thousand years ago. Nameless is a hero that is brought before the current ruler as a reward for having killed the three assassins that had been trying to kill the ruler for years. One of the best tools that Yimou Zhang (the director) uses in this film is that once Nameless is brought to the ruler, the story begins to unfold similarly to Kevin Spacey's telling in The Usual Suspects. It begins with Nameless telling the story of how he went about defeating the three assassins, and flows from there into the twists and turns of the plot. The movie has characteristics of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but mostly it takes the best qualities of that movie and combines them with a much better plot.
Overall Rating = 9

I was looking through my old VHS movies and ran across a tape of Street Fighter, the movie adaptation from the video game. I do admit that I enjoyed the movie when it first came out, but in my defense I was in junior high at the time. Ok, not a good excuse, but oh well. The movie was turned from a street fighting tournament-type game into a horribly-scripted movie that focused instead on the personal conflict between Guile (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and Major Bison (Raul Julia), both of which did a horrendous job of acting by the way. Almost all of the fight sequences in the film are terrible, and they turned Ken and Ryu into side characters when the movie should have been centered around them, especially Ryu. If you want to laugh at a bad movie, or having an 8-hour-bad-martial-arts-movie marathon (like I've done at work occasionally) then make this one of your choices, otherwise I hope you're in a liquidly-impaired state when you watch this.
Overall Rating = 3.5

I hadn't really heard anything about A Shark Tale other than the fact that it hadn't done as well as was hoped in the theatre so far. Erika really wanted to go see it, so 5 of us went and sat through it. It was definitely not on par with Shrek and Shrek 2, the huge Pixar films, but it had its moments. Robert De Niro was entertaining as Don Lino, the "Godfather" of the great white sharks. I'm amused by small details, so I found the fact that there was a mole on the shark a pretty funny point. The movie's plot revolves around Oscar (Will Smith), a small fish who wants to get to the "Top of the Reef", and be rich and famous. To that end, he lies and claims that he killed a shark, instantly making him a celebrity. Jack Black plays Lenny, the son of Don Lino, who is a vegetarian shark, and an embarassment to his father. Lenny and Oscar agree to team up to make Oscar keep appearing as the Shark Slayer while Lenny then gets to disappear. This brought us to, in my opinion, one of the funniest points in the movie, the battle between Oscar and Lenny for the benefit of the reef and the sharks. I won't ruin the joke for those of you who might want to see the movie still, but make sure you notice when Oscar is inside of Lenny's mouth.
Overall Rating = 6

I'm usually a fan of John Cusack, and this movie didn't disappoint me. While there were noticeable differences between the movie and the book, Runaway Jury was turned into a great movie. The plot centers around a trial of gun companies after an office full of people are gunned down, and the widow of one of the victims files suit against the companies, claiming they are responsible. Cusack stars as a video-game store owner that gets called for Jury Duty. Dustin Hoffman is the prosecuting attorney and Gene Hackman plays a jury consultant hired by the gun companies to help turn the trial in their direction. The movie has quite a few twists in it, and even if you have read the book the movie is different enough to keep you interested without veering away nearly as much as The Bourne Supremacy did from its novel.
Overall Rating = 8

Being a big Will Ferrell fan I figured I better watch Elf now that it was out on video. The plot revolves around Buddy the Elf (Ferrell), a child who gets orphaned at the North Pole after sneaking into Santa's gift bag one Christmas. It follows him wreaking havoc up north before going to look for his real dad (James Caan). There are many standard Will-isms such as the preview scene where he is yelling about Santa coming to the store. If you enjoy Ferrell's brand of acting and comedy you'll probably enjoy this movie, even though it's not one of his best by any means. In the mood for a stupid comedy though? Sure, it'll pass the time.
Overall Rating = 5

Pitch Black and its sequel, The Chronicles of Riddick are the two movies starring Vin Diesel that I don't despise. In fact, they are both enjoyable in their own ways.
Pitch Black is the introduction of the character named Riddick. The movie takes place on an alien planet that a passenger ship crashes on. Riddick is a prisoner at the time that was captured by a bounty hunter. He has apparently been on the receiving end of an operation in prison that gave him the ability to see in the dark. This is especially important as the planet just happens to be on a path to suffer a full eclipse of its three suns, during which time the entire planet is in complete darkness. One by one the survivors get taken down by the aliens on the planet that come out once the darkness sets in. With this movie, the plot had potential to turn out much better than the movie actually did. The aliens were cheesy and not well done, the overall acting wasn't great, yet there was still something about it that made it a movie that I liked watching. Remember, not every movie that you like has to be a good movie.
Overall Rating = 6

Chronicles brings Riddick back and starts to delve into his background. There have been mixed reviews of this movie since it was released, but a lot of the comments have revolved around camera work and plot line of the film. In my opinion, the plot does a good job of working details of Riddick's life into the storyline. It is also one of a proposed three-movie set that will deal with Riddick's past more as well as moving forward from the ending of this one. The camera work question comes as a result of many of the fight scenes. For example, the scene after Riddick puts out the candles and proceeds to whoop it up on a bunch of guards in the city is somewhat choppy, jumpy, weirdly-lit filming, but the point people are missing with scenes like that is that it is trying to convey the fight as it would have seemed to everyone except Riddick. This movie was definitely a step up from Pitch Black, and while it didn't perform as well as people hoped it would, I do have some hope that the next two films will somehow find their way to the big screen.
Overall Rating = 7

At the suggestion of Mikey and Rena I went to see the latest effort by the makers of South Park. I wasn't disappointed. It has to be one of the most offensive, crude, funny movies I've seen in a long, long time.
The movie itself is played out as a mockery of both sides of the political spectrum, all of which demolishes any semblance of political correctness. They use Alec Baldwin as the leader of the Film Actors Guild (F.A.G.), a group that brings Liberal actors on to the scene, such as Janeane Garofalo and Sean Penn. Besides all the political and actor-inspired humor in the film, the musical numbers by Parker and Stone add a lot to the comedy with songs such as "I'm So Ronery" (sung by the antagonist Kim Jong II, the leader of North Korea), "America, F*ck Yeah!" (the theme song of Team America as they head out to fight evil), and a song that I won't name that appears in the beginning of the film in Parker and Stone's mockery of the Broadway play "Rent". For those that enjoy Parker and Stone's South Park, or their feature films (South Park Movie, Baseketball) you should enjoy their brand of humor in this film as well.
Overall Rating = 9

I finally watched the screener that I picked up at work of the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. I liked the movie, but I'm not sure if it's better or worse than the original. Some of the camera work was really well done, in my opinion, especially the angles that they approached many of the close-ups of Denzel.
The plot centers around Denzel's character, who was a Captain in the military back in 1991, over in the Middle East. He was the leader of a small group at the time, including a Sergeant who is now running for Vice-President of the US. Denzel has dreams that seem to show him things that happened back in the Middle East, however, and he begins to search for the truth of what went on for the three days that his patrol was lost and out of contact with the rest of the military.
There are a few twists in the plot, but it's almost a misnomer to call them that as it's nearly impossible to not see everything coming. Even with the transparency in the plot it remains interesting and Liev Schreiber does a commendable job in portraying Raymond Shaw, the former Sergeant and Vice-President candidate. I'll have to go back and re-watch the original before I make a judgement on which is better, though.
Overall Rating = 7

I know this is a pretty old movie (it has Andre the Giant in it...), but it is, without a doubt one of the best movies ever made. Allow me to explain. The whole idea of the story is that of a fairy tale being told to a sick child (Fred Savage) by his grandfather (Peter Falk aka "Columbo"). The fairy tale is based around a young lady named Buttercup, played by Robin Wright (before she got "Penn"ed), who does an "ok" job, but is definitely not one of the premier characters. Cary Elwes plays Westley, the hero of the film, and Buttercup's true love. He brilliantly spoofs the "handsome prince" stereotype of fairy tales while also bringing into play some of the more unlikely occurances that fairy tales often have.
Miracle Max (Billy Crystal) and Valerie (Carol Kane) are wonderful as the two elderly "miracle workers" that help Inigo and Fezzik (Mandy Patinkin & Andre the Giant) while they're trying to help Westley.
The greatest appeal of this movie is in its humor, obviously. The combination of comic actors with cameo appearances makes the unlikely story unforgettable.
Overall Rating = 10

What a great movie. I hadn't watched it in quite a while until I borrowed it recently from a friend. Rounders is, without a doubt, one of my favorite movies. Granted, the Russian accent from John Malkovich can get a little trying at times, but everything else about the movie is great. Ed Norton turns in a good performance as the trouble-causing sidekick to Matt Damon. Damon plays Mike, a great poker player who winds up in over his head after taking on a debt that a friend had built up. He's attempting to become a lawyer and patch things up with his girlfriend, while at the same time trying to keep his friend out of trouble. Rounders and Good Will Hunting are both wonderful roles for Matt Damon, who has struggled at times to have roles that really fit into his personality. He does a great job at getting the audience to empathize with him while, at the same time, make them want to yell at Ed Norton for being an idiot.
Overall Rating = 10

Both The Human Stain and Spartan are movies that you watch, and when you get done with them, you sit there and say "Uh...my brain hurts." Not to say that either one is bad. On the contrary, I honestly enjoyed both of these movies.

Anthony Hopkins delivers a great performance in Human Stain, as most people would expect from him. The movie focuses on Coleman Silk (Hopkins), a classics professor and Dean at a college in New England. His life comes unraveled when he is accused of a racial epithet and resigns from his position at the college. We then meet Nathan Zuckerman (played by Gary Sinise), an author who Coleman approaches concerning writing a story about himself. Zuckerman is also the narrator of the movie at times. Through the narration and flashback sequences, Coleman's life is slowly told, from his days before first attending college to the point in his life he is at. The other main character is a mid-30's woman named Faunia Farley (Nicole Kidman). Her life is the other aspect that is introduced as she and Coleman are lovers. This all leads up to the revelation of what Coleman has hidden from everyone in his life for decades. To say that this movie is, in any way, happy would be a huge misnomer. There is the occasional moment of levity, but for the most part it's a serious movie. Maybe it was the mood I was in at the time, but I really liked this movie. It shows the lengths that we will go to in order to create the paths that we think we should trod upon, but it also shows how everything always comes full-circle in the end.

Spartan was a movie I watched a little while ago when it first came out on DVD. It stars Val Kilmer as a secret agent whose assignment is to track down the kidnapped daughter of the President. The main preface of the movie is that he is working for an agency whose job is to find her before any word of her kidnapping is made public in the news. The plot twists and turns a little, including a slave-trading circle that she apparently got kidnapped into, as well as a fake announcement of her death, meant to throw them off her trail. There's political corruption running rampant throughout, forcing Kilmer to cope with both finding the girl and working around the agency that should be helping him. The main strength of this movie lies not in the acting, but in the storyline.

Overall Rating - Human Stain=8 Spartan=7

The Forgotten was a decent movie. The overall plot, a missing child that everyone says is just a figment of the mother's imagination, is an original idea. Julianne Moore turns in a good performance, but every time I have to watch her cry in a movie I want to stab my eyes out because she has the most pathetic looking face when she cries! The storyline was pretty predictable throughout the movie, and while it remained interesting most of the way through, the ending was definitely the downside to the movie, in my opinion.
Overall Rating = 7

I watched Man on Fire, the new Denzel Washington release. The plot centers around an alcoholic ex-military man name Creasy (Denzel) whose friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) sets him up with a bodyguard job for a prominant figure in Mexico City. The little girl that he is assigned to guard, Pita, is played by Dakota Fanning, who does a nice job of lightening the mood at various times by her innocent inquiries for Creasy. The real interest of the movie comes into play when Pita is kidnapped and her parents are told that she is dead. Creasy then goes on a vigilante mission of what he believes is justice: killing anyone who had anything to do with the Pita's fate. The part I was most impressed with was Denzel's portrayal of such a dark-spirited individual. It was entirely different from his role in Training Day or any other movie he has done.
Overall Rating = 8

The Rock's latest endeavor didn't have the comic addition of Seann William Scott that it had in Rundown for which I'm entirely grateful. Hoever; Walking Tall also didn't deliver as much as I had hoped. The 1973 version of the movie was much better in my opinion, starring Joe Don Baker (most known to this generation as Jack Wade in Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies). The story itself is based on the true story of Buford Pusser, who came back to the small town he grew up in, ran for sheriff, and cleaned up the town after being elected. In this never version, the title character's name has been changed to Chris Vaughn, played by The Rock (Dwayne Johnson). It's an extremely short movie in today's terms (75 minutes) and is focused primarily on action scenes. The action itself is entertaining, mostly because it revolves around old-fashioned hand-to-hand combat with a small amount of gun play. While there is the occasional cheesy stunt thrown in as well, the scene in the casino with the Rock taking out 6 of the casino's security officers focuses well on the presence that Dwayne Johnson can bring to action movies. All-in-all, I have to say that he hasn't had much opportunity to act in movies with really solid plots, and so when there is a plot such as this and it still turns out a little disappointing, its more of a slap in the face to him. In the scope of action heroes, the Rock has the size, look, and ability to become a force to be reckoned with.
Overall Rating = 5.5