Reviews

Film adaptations whether they're TV, musical, novel, or in the case of '300', graphic novel are always risky. The director has to worry about what to keep from the original material, what to take out, & what to add in order to make the final product considered great. All those things are equally important and if even one is flawed, the others could be comprised no matter how good they may be. In second-time director Zack Snyder's big screen take on Frank Miller's 1998 graphic novel there are many visual effects, but really not much else. The odd thing is, that's actually a good thing. A very good thing.

'300' tells the not-so-accurate account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Led by King Leonidas, here played by Gerard Butler, 300 Spartan warriors fought to death against King Xerxes' Persian army. As a result, the rest of Greece was inspired to band together against Xerxes, creating the world's first democracy. There you have it, pretty much the entire movie in a nutshell. The simplicity of the film's outline for the most part helps everything move along smoothly. Snyder added a few bits and pieces to Miller's original storyline in order help spice things up, but nothing too drastic. Only a couple of times does it seem like things are going in slow motion, but that's mainly because of the intense battle sequences which make some instances feel dull in comparison.

Where as the last adaptation of a graphic novel, 'Sin City' was filled with notable names portraying the characters, in '300' there are slim to none. Mostly, none. Although Butler has starred in almost twenty films he's yet to reach that point where he's a household name. In '300' there is barely any room for acting between the arm slicing and head chopping scenes. Only a handful of the actors get a chance to do much with their roles. Lena Headley, who plays Queen Gorgo gets the most screen-time aside from Butler. She does okay I suppose. Nothing amazing, but not dreadful either. Acting isn't what is important in this film though. It's those fancy special effects.

The ocean scene is magnificent, the scenery is amazing, but other things aren't always so impressive. In the first encounter with the Persians, the stylized blood makes the graphic novel feel truly present, which is great. After that scene though, the effect is no longer seen. The blood is normal, I guess you could say. The feel was present in quite a few other scenes, but since blood is a huge part of this film, I felt some of the quality was lost. Also, the creatures such as the elephants and rhino were a bit shoddy. They didn't appear life-like. However, much like the other special effects extravaganza this year, 'Ghost Rider' everything looks cool so it's not that big of a deal. For the record that's the only thing '300' and 'Ghost Rider' have in common. I just want to make that clear.

Earlier this year I named '300' as one of the ten films to pay attention to. At the time, I thought it was going to be excellent. Now that I've seen it I can return to that presumption. I'm not going to lie, it did disappoint me. I expected something more. Don't get me wrong it's really good, just not great. I'm also not going to brush off the fact that that this film will still end up being a favorite of many. It has tremendous appeal and will gross well over $100 million at the box office in no time. Like I said, it's good that there are so many visuals effects and not much else. Had there been a lot of big names and the storyline been changed it wouldn't have been the same. The effects step up pleasing the audience and allow the actors (which most people won't even recognize) take the backseat for once. For me though, it just didn't have that oomph I hoped for.

If you've been looking for a film where a out of control nympho gets chained to a radiator by an extremely religious southern man then look no further than Paramount Vantage's latest release 'Black Snake Moan'. Not exactly looking for what I just described you say? Well then, you best get ya wits 'bout yaself and mosey on down to your local theater and still see it as Samuel L. Jackson's character Lazarus would say. As long as you're open minded and don't take everything seriously, there's no reason you won't leave the theater glad you saw it.

In the third offering from director Craig Brewer, we are taken into the deep south where as the tagline to the film claims, everything is hotter. While there we're introduced to the Godfearing bluesman, Lazarus as previously said played by Jackson, and the almost always half naked Rae; a role bravely taken on by Christina Ricci. In the film this unlikely pair cross paths long enough for their characters to each learn a lesson from one another. Both lessons ultimately convey the message to us the audience that no matter what, we are all human. No one is perfect and if everyone would realize that, then we'd be a lot better off. The question of if this will be understood, or be accepted by all who see the film is another story.

One thing not up for debate is how great Jackson and Ricci both are here. You'd think with the role of a sex-crazed woman, overacting would be a given, but no, not here. Ricci breaks through and demonstrates true talent with a raw performance that also doubles as her best to date. Then we have Jackson who completely disappears and for the first time in a long time makes us forget who he even is. Sadly, the third star of the film, Justin Timberlake who plays Rae's military-bound boyfriend isn't all that great. At the start, he fails miserably as he appears to be trying too hard. Later on he steps it up some, still he's far from the level he reached in January's 'Alpha Dog'.

The other thing 'Black Snake Moan' boasts is a splendid soundtrack. Containing tracks from The Black Keys, John Doe, pieces from the score done by Scott Bomar, & of course four, count 'em, four tracks from Jackson himself. It's actually one of his songs, the main performance of the film, 'Stackolee' that is the fuel to the fire of this great collection. It alone is worth the ticket price. Other notable musical delights from the soundtrack are Bomar's 'The Chain', 'When the Lights Go Out' from the Black Keys, & the title track which is also among the most memorable scenes in the film where Lazarus sings to Rae on a stormy night.

The efforts of Craig Brewer can't go without mention though. His last film 'Hustle & Flow' which ended up surpassing low expectations and gaining critical acclaim put him on the map. What he has done with 'Black Snake Moan' will be what sets him apart from other newbies to the industry. He not only directed 'Moan', but also wrote its screenplay. The end result is a story that is surprising and clever. As you watch you feel like you know exactly where it's headed despite its valiant composure. Just as you think you've predicted the next move Brewer shifts gears and takes an entirely different route. There are however some blotches within the screenplay. The background characters are drab and flat while the ending is somewhat disappointing. It left me craving for something more exciting. After so many highs I guess the final scenes were a tad weak compared to the rest of the film.

I imagine the majority of people who see 'Black Snake Moan' won't enjoy it due to the fact they won't be able to stop themselves from thinking how unlikely the situations are. The depressing part about that is there are many other films with just as unlikely, even more outrageous scenarios that are widely well received. It's the issues of race, religious motives, & sexuality the film exhibits that will have more effect on opinion than anything. The idea of a black man chaining a white woman up in his house is enough to make most people not even consider seeing it. Simply put, it's not for everyone. Like I said, to fully enjoy it you have to go in with an open mind, or else you're just wasting your money. For those of you who can do that, I highly recommend it.

The trailers have finished and the lights are dimming completely now. That familiar torch lady in the Columbia Pictures logo has appeared and quickly vanishes into the Marvel Comics flipping logo which transforms into a Ghost Rider inspired font. Finally the Crystal Sky logo is shown, then it comes; a somewhat interesting, but not quite exciting narration by Sam Elliott, who here plays the Caretaker. After we are told the "backstory" the high energy, fire decorated opening credits begin. It's here I think to myself, come on Johnson, impress me. About an hour and fifty minutes later I accept the fact that I asked for too much. Don't get me wrong, there's lot of sparks, most being the visuals, but the fire never really gets going in 'Ghost Rider'.

The storyline here really isn't all that complex. When Johnny Blaze, first played Matthew Long, was a teen he made a deal with the Devil, better known here as Mephistopheles, played by Peter Fonda. This deal was to save his "father" from the cancer that was slowly killing him. Mephisto keeps to the deal, but Johnny's "father" dies later that same day during a motorcycle stunt. In exchange for his "father's" health, even though short-lived, Johnny will one day be called upon to become the Ghost Rider and do Mephisto's bidding. Years later, Johnny, now played by Nicolas Cage, is a famous stunt driver and is haunted by the deal he made every day of his life. The time comes and he is revisited by Mephiso and told to seek out and destroy Blackheart, played by Wes Bently, who has his own team of thugs known as the Nephilim. Once he does, Johnny is promised his soul will be returned, thus ridding him of the curse he currently bears.

So there you have it, the basic outline for 'Ghost Rider'. That is where the film first starts to fall apart. The real story of Johnny Blaze's life and how he becomes Ghost Rider is slightly different. Crash is not Johnny's actual father as we are led to believe. (That's why I put quotations around father in the above description.) His wife Mona isn't even in the film and Mephisto is never driven away by Roxanne's purity either here. These among other things are some of the ways Mark Steven Johnson's take on 'Ghost Rider' isn't true to the comic. I myself aren't a Ghost Rider fanatic or anything close, but I'm sure those that are will find these alterations unnecessary and questionable. For the rest of the public that are unaware though, they'll just take it as is as they're force fed Johnson's $120 million adaptation.

Oh, but that's not all that's bad folks. Acting skill was apparently not a priority. If it were, I believe someone else would have been cast in the role of Roxanne, played by Eva Mendes. I'm. Not. Going. Anywhere. Digging deep, that's how Mendes' lines come out. It. Was. Almost. Robotic. The. Way. She. Spoke. Bently is not very good either. He's just doesn't come off villainous enough. He's got the look I guess, but that's about it. It's not entirely the actor's fault's though. The combined effort of Johnson, Shane Salerno, David S. Goyer, & Jonathan Hensleigh that's called a screenplay is far from good writing. A couple weeks back and again this week I was warned that the comics weren't written too well either. Let me just say to that person now, Nick, if they're anything like the dialogue in the film, you were dead on. Too much comedy was added in as well. Continuously jokes are spread throughout, which takes away from the sense of seriousness and drama that I believe was crucial for everything to work.

The visuals are what in the end strive to be the focal point of the film. The fire doesn't always appear to be real, but everything is just plain cool looking. The most memorable moment for me was when the water element member of the Nemphilim's eye drips down his face and he wipes it off while instantaneously another eye appears. That was pretty awesome. I can't forget about the bike though, it's beautiful. As a whole though, the pricey CGI isn't enough to compensate for all the mistakes. 'Ghost Rider' makes it clear that Johnson should leave comic characters alone. He obviously can't do it right, so why even attempt?

It's going' down, well at least in theaters this weekend. In the comedy 'Norbit', Eddie Murphy is once again wearing a fat-suit, this time playing the over-sized, self-indulgent, fury-filled Rasputia. That is actually the only purpose of this film sadly; giving Murphy the excuse to parade around in a fat-suit for another go around. Other than that, 'Norbit' is pointless.

For a film with the main character's name in the title, Norbit himself isn't all that interesting. Eddie Murphy fails to add any real liveliness or hilarity to him which is disappointing. From the half-baked lisp to the whiny persona created, he's almost a chore to watch. However, upon viewing the trailer we already know that his wife Rasputia, also played by Murphy, is the real star of the film. So how was she? Well, a little better than Norbit. A lot more fun to watch anyways. If this weren't a comedy though, it'd be almost impossible not to hate her completely. She's pretty much the ultimate bitch as she is overt aggression and extreme arrogance. The worst part about her is the catchphrase she coins and uses over and over in the film: "How you doin'?". It wasn't funny the first time it was said, and it wasn't funny any of the thirty-five times after.

I must admit that even with the predictability in the usage of that line, there were a couple of things that did shock me a tad. The first being, Norbit and Rasputia have an old woman as a neighbor who owns a little pug named Lloyd. (No, that's not the shocking part.) There's an instance in the film where Norbit is thrown out of a window and is laying in the front yard. The pug who has been injured purposely by Rasputia and is now sporting one of those wheely-deals that help dogs legs heal goes over to Norbit and proceeds to lick his face. Norbit soon after asks Lloyd what is he going to do about Rasputia. Then it happens, Lloyd replies with, "Kill the bitch." Totally out of left field there. Maybe it was some odd homage to 'Dr. Dolittle', I'm really not sure.

The other notable shocker was the score of the film. Now this isn't something most people even going to pay attention to while watching a film, but I do. David Newman whose previous work includes the scores for 'Ice Age' and 'Serenity' is the guy who composed the music for 'Norbit'. I was so impressed with his work here, I ended up going to Borders after I left theater to buy the soundtrack that includes his compositions as well as the songs featured in the film. I have to say 'Norbit Sneaks Out' and 'Norbit and Kate' are the best.

Another one of the very few highlights of 'Norbit' is the presence of Eddie Griffin and the performance he gives as the pimp Pope Sweet Jesus. Yes, you may be scratching your heads at the thought of such a character being mentioned as such. It's true though and the charisma Griffin has is what makes him a pleasure to watch. He's smooth, relaxed, & on point at all times while delivering his lines that are surprisingly not over the top in this otherwise showcase for jokes of that type.

Those over the top jokes and gags are unfortunately what will be bringing all the people to the theaters this weekend as Rasputia crushes young Hannibal Lecter at the box office. Be warned, 'Norbit' may have the glasses and Mr. Nice Guy likeness, but he is no 'Nutty Professor' by any

Over ten years ago Tim Allen starred in a instant holiday classic known as 'The Santa Clause'. Many years later it was followed-up by an okay sequel. Now just four years later, that sequel has led to what will hopefully be the end of 'The Santa Clause' series, 'The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause'.

In 'The Escape Clause' it is Christmas time again (obviously) and Carol a.k.a. Mrs. Clause, played by Elizabeth Mitchell, is not only pregnant, but is feeling a bit homesick. In order to help comfort her Santa a.k.a. Scott brings her parents Bud and Lucy to the North Pole. Since they don't know Scott is Santa, they of course are put to sleep and wake up believing the sleigh ride was a plane flight. He also decides to just go ahead and make a family affair and take along his son Charlie, ex-wife Laura, her husband Neil as well as their daughter Lucy. All the while Jack Frost is going about the North Pole silently scheming a way to get Scott to use the Escape Clause so he may then become Santa, which he inevitably does. Frost ends up turning the North Pole into a theme park where only those who can afford to pay the price are able to have a "merry Christmas". Now it is all up to Scott to get back to the North Pole and reverse everything and save Christmas.

'The Escape Clause' actually has a pretty good premise. This is the first film in 'The Santa Clause' series to have a villain, which I thought was interesting. The bad thing is, Martin Short is not all that great at playing Jack Frost. He's doesn't portray the maliciousness I would have thought Jack Frost has. In addition, he only gets to take over and be Santa for less than ten minutes. Which really isn't all that exciting once seen to begin with.

A big letdown here is that Bernard, the head elf played by David Krumholtz previously in the first two films, is not present. He has been replaced by a new elf, Curtis, who is played by a familiar face seen in two other movies released this year starring Tim Allen, Spencer Breslin. He is downright annoying and just plain dense as head elf. I guess Krumholtz was happy enough with his role on the TV show 'Numb3rs' that he didn't feel the need to return here.

Although it is filled mediocrity through and through 'The Escape Clause' is actually okay for kids. It has simple (but not funny) jokes and enough "action" to keep them well entertained. For adults and parents though, it will mostly likely be a living nightmare to watch. There is no uncertainty that it would have been much better suited as a direct-to-DVD release though.

It wasn't exactly a mystery that 'Primeval' was more than likely going to be a substandard creature-feature. If Disney's last minute decision to switch its release date with another upcoming film, 'The Invisible' like it's nothing more than a pawn wasn't a clue, I don't know what is. Its jokes aren't all that funny, it's political message is unnecessary, & the constant game of tug-of-war the plot plays is a bit annoying. Yet…it's actually kind of fun to watch.

Inspired by true events, 'Primeval' takes us on a hunt for the most notorious "serial killer" in all of Africa, Gustave the crocodile. He's lean, mean, & twenty feet long. Led by TV producer Tim Freeman, played by Dominic Purcell, it's the news team's job to capture the croc with a supposed victim count over 300, and bring him back to the U.S. The task proves to be more difficult when they find themselves directly in the heart of a war based on tribal malignity. The body count is increasing, and the time left is dwindling as the team struggles to stay alive.

The number of jokes told in 'Primeval' is almost equal to the victim count of Gustave. Well, it at least seems that way. This might not be a problem if half of them were actually funny. "I feel like a pork chop on Queen Latifah's plate." says Orlando Jones' character, Steve. I didn't even laugh on the inside at that one. The jokes are actually important though, so I can't really poke at them too much. If it wasn't for the jokes told by Steve, you wouldn't care at all whether he dies or not.

The jokes are also important for another reason. They provide the transition between each time the plot decides to switch back and forth. I believed the main focus of the film was about catching a killer crocodile. There are times though when it feels like the war of the tribes is what we all should really be paying attention to. Then just as it seems that's the direction the film is going, it quickly reverts back to the original hunt. The war should've just remained a background subject, rather than forcing itself in your face randomly throughout the film. This was probably done because it's also a main aspect of the documentary shown sometimes on PBS.

The war ends up leading up to the reprehensible political message presented. Gustave's attacks are blamed solely on the war. Tim states that we made him develop a taste for human flesh with all the killing. I kid you not, that's the reasoning the film attempts to make you believe. There was no need to include that. I went into 'Primeval' expecting just to see a giant crocodile mangle and devour people. I didn't expect that to be accompanied with some asinine message wanting me to believe war is the explanation for its eating habits.

Now even though the film bears these many flaws, it still manages to be kind of fun to watch. The chase scene involving the croc and Steve is highly unbelievable, but very entertaining. Almost every scene involving Gustave is veritably enjoyable. Those really are 'Primeval's only highlight except for the surprisingly well shot village scenes that are simply superb. Considering that, I won't discourage people from seeing it. Many people will probably find the jokes amusing and from the average movie-goer's standpoint, the message won't make any difference. It really all comes down to whether or not the death scenes are exciting enough. Are they? For the most part yes; the best ones being the first and last.

Five years ago senior American diplomat Robert Thorne's (Liev Schreiber) wife Katherine (Julia Stiles) had a delivery that resulted in the death of their newborn child. The thing is, she doesn't know anything about it. The hospital priest, Father Spiletto (Giovanni Lambardo Radice) convinced Robert to take and raise another child born that same night whose mother died during delivery. The child's name, Damien. (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) Years pass and Damien is happy as well as healthy. Everything appears perfect. That is until now, beginning at his birthday party where his nanny commits suicide. The occurrences continue with warnings from a strange priest, Father Brennan (Pete Poslethwaite) claiming Robert must defeat the son of the Devil. As the story progresses and more out of the normal events take place, Robert slowly begins to piece together the puzzle and realize the horrid truth. Damien is no ordinary child, he is none other than the Anti-Christ. It is then he learns that in order to stop the dreadful catastrophe yet to occur he must kill his own son. Or so who he believed to be his own.

Sounds interesting doesn't it? Perhaps it might be if the exact story hadn't been told in theaters thirty years ago. There lies one of the problems with this extremely unnecessary remake of 'The Omen'. It is so similar in almost every way it's disappointingly scary. Aside from a few death scenes and an added sixteen second dream sequence, the only real difference here is the characters have cell phones, digital cameras, & the internet.

The other problem, the acting. It was so close to grisly it just barely slides by as mediocre. Julia Stiles certainly did not amaze by any means. It isn't until shortly before we last see her that she almost manages to get a hold of her character and begin to come through. Possibly her next role as Glenna in 'Edmond' being released next week in select theaters will suit her better and give her a chance to shine.

I really wanted this remake to surpass its predetermined God-awfulness, but it didn't. Director John Moore tried to go a good job here but was unable to succeed. What he couldn't seem to grasp is when you re-make a film, you're supposed to bring and present the same feeling and likeness the initial movie contained, while still making it your own and adding your own print to it. Not rehash the same one and wrap it in a new package. He wanted to bring back a classic horror film and make it great all over again, but it didn't just happen. The fact it's practically scene for scene the same as the original is mindlessly idiotic. Heed my words, see the original 1976 'Omen', not this lousy remake. In it you'll find far better acting and an overall more enjoyable viewing experience.

Michael Newman (Adam Sandler) is a workaholic architect who lately, has been putting his career before his family. While at a Bed Bath & Beyond one night shopping for a universal remote he meets a man by the name of Morty. (Christopher Walken) It's Morty that ends up changing Michael's life with the gift of a remote that not only controls the TV and other household appliances, but his own universe. Upon discovering the abilities the remote has Michael begins to use it to fast-forward through what he considers unpleasant and annoying. Such as fights with his wife and foreplay. As he does this the remote begins creating its own memory and eventually starts to automatically choose what to fast-forward through. Michael unremittingly goes further and further through his life as the remote continues to fast-forward. In turn, he realizes the importance of spending time with his family.

'Click' seemingly starts out will with its cutesy family wisecracks. And the first couple instances where Michael uses the remote for his own personal kicks is somewhat funny. After that, there really are no laughs to be had. It's just the same joke exhibited over and over again with different alterations. Even the dog Sundance's incessant humping of a stuffed duck gets old real quick as the film advances. This is tragic because 'Click' is being passed off as a comedy but unmistakably isn't funny.

Another fault the film bears is the main character Micheal is nowhere as entertaining as Morty. Not only did Walken do a better job of acting, he is overall more enjoyable to watch. Truth be told, Morty is actually the only thing that holds this mess together. And only slightly better than average direction by Frank Caraci who also did two of Sandler's other films ('The Waterboy' and 'The Wedding Singer') only contributes dullness to this already colorless movie.

There are however a few heartfelt moments displayed throughout the extent of the film. But in the final scenes there's supposed to be a big profound moment when Michael desperately tries to tell his son how family comes first with his last breaths but Sandler just doesn't deliver. Who honestly expected splendid acting from him though? But despite all the downsides 'Click' presents, many people will still enjoy it. What can I say, fart and sex jokes sell.

Once upon a time, twelve years ago to be exact, a Canadian film studio by the name of Lionsgate was created. At the start their films went pretty much unnoticed. Starting in 2000 a wave of change came about. First was 'American Psycho', then 'Monster's Ball' in 2001, followed by 'Saw', 'Fahrenheit 9/11', 'The Devil's Rejects', & 'Crash' in the years after. All those films became notable favorites of many. The year is now 2007, and Lionsgate has assembled a rather interesting collection of people to take part in their latest release. Animation designer of 1997's 'Pippi Longstocking', Paul Boger is directing. 'The Return of Jafar's story creator Doug Langdale and 'Ground Control's writer Rob Moreland have been chosen to write. To bring the characters created to life, on board is 'The Grudge's Sarah Michelle Gellar, 'Scooby-Doo's Freddy Prinze Jr., & once alien obliterating, Sigourney Weaver. Together with numerous others, they have created the atrocity of a film with the truthful title 'Happily N'Ever'.

The Wizard of Fairy Tale Land, played by George Carlin, is going on vacation. That leaves his assistants Mambo and Munk, played by Andy Dick and Wallace Shawn in charge. It's now their duty to keep the balance of good and evil. This means making sure all stories go according to planned; each getting their happy ending. Everything is okay until Sigourney Weaver's character, Frieda, Cinderella's evil step-mother, finds out about the Wizard's absence and easily takes over. The kingdom is now in shambles with evil now holding power. Cinderella, played by Sarah Michelle sets out with Mambo and Monk in search of Prince Charming hoping that he'll be able to save the day. Rick, the dishwasher of the Prince, feels this is a waste of time. His plan is for him, Cinderella, Mambo, & Monk to take out Frieda themselves, which the others disagree with. Either way, the fact remains that she must be stopped, and soon.

If this had been released in 2001, the idea of it might be more appealing. Unfortunately, since it didn't, it's almost impossible not to compare with 'Shrek'. Once again fairy tale icons have been synced together for a CGI film. Only this time, they're aren't as much fun to watch. I'll confess, the introduction fooled me. It made me think that it would end up being okay. Thirty-one minutes in, I was completely frustrated. I wanted it to end right then and there. This is actually fitting though considering a line Will gives at the end of the intro. He states, "I'm sorry to tell you, but it only gets worse from here." How sad it is that I didn't pay any attention to his warning.

The kinks in the characters really make the difference here. Cinderella isn't able to stray from believing the Prince is her one true love. She doesn't end up opening her eyes to what is right in front of her until the very end. This ends up making her seem dimwitted, and as a result, makes us never really care about her. Then Rumpelstiltskin, played by Michael McShane, ends up slowly turning good once evil is in favor and lets him to get the baby he sought after. This change ends up affecting his fairy tale. Instead of being dragged into the earth by rage, he ends up staying and helps care for the child. This was only done for the film because he becomes somewhat likable. So of course in the end, they can't simply dispose of him like in the actual story. I guess anyone can now re-write one of the Brother's Grimm's classic tales.

Above all other imperfections displayed, repetitiveness is honestly the worst of them all. Over and over and over and over and over mostly from Frieda, is the idea that nothing is going to end happy said. Sometimes it's re-worded, sometimes it's not. I would think that title of the film gave that away. Even having Frieda shout it once would be okay, but no. They had to have her say it until it almost loses its meaning. It does succeed in making you want the happy ending to happen even more though. If that's even important at all at that point… It does try, I'll give it that, but it's nowhere near as clever as 'Shrek'. I must say though, I did like the seven dwarfs. The twist on them is nice. With that I must also say, they single-handedly can't save 'Happily N'Ever After'. I urge you, avoid seeing it. Don't even rent it when it becomes available on DVD. Just walk away and never turn back.

I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.

'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.

I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. It's not interesting. It's not compelling. It's just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jump-start the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to its foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.

Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 remake of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.) I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself.

What do you get when you combine the acting talents of young Dakota Fanning with an all-star cast and mix it with the classic tale of a pig named Wilbur and his spider friend, Charlotte? The answer is easy. You get what appears to be a great film at first look, but really is only a fair adaptation which pales in comparison to the book in which it is based on.

Gary Winick's take on E.B. White's 1952 novel 'Charlotte's Web' tells the tale of a young pig named Wilbur, who here is voiced by Dominic Scott Kay. Late one night just as he is about to be slaughtered for being a runt, he is saved by a young girl. Fern, played by Dakota Fanning, rushes in and promises to care for him and in doing so, inevitably ends up spending all her free time with him. Soon though Wilbur grows to be a bit too big to remain in the house. Fern's mother then decides it is time for him to go and live across the road in her uncle's barn. Reluctantly, Fern agrees. Once there Wilbur, befriends what is considered to be a hideous creature residing within the corner of the barn's entrance. This creature would be the spider named Charlotte A. Cavatica, who is voiced by Julia Roberts. As time passes Wilbur eventually learns of the fate all spring pigs such as himself meet in the winter. It is then that Charlotte promises Wilbur she will not let him meet that fate and he will indeed see the first snow of winter. Now it's all up to Charlotte to find a way to get the message across to Fern's uncle and everyone else that Wilbur is anything but ordinary.

'Charlotte's Web' was one of the few films I was really looking forward to this year. I honestly don't know what it was, but there was something about the trailer that when I first saw it made me go, wow. Now that I've finally seen the film, I look back at that trailer and say, wow. Only this time it's not the original wow of awe I had. It is a wow of realization that not only is the book better than the film, but so is the trailer. I was hoping for excellence. The only thing excellent I saw was Julia Robert's voice performance, which is boosted by the interesting CGI character design created for, Charlotte.

Even though the story is great, the film does not manage to pull its weight. Ninety percent of the film is done with the camera remaining still. This makes the scenes seem one dimensional and dull. The all-star cast is a bit of a problem as well. Since I knew and recognized every person playing each character, it was hard to not focus on that aspect. The irony of Oprah Winfrey playing a chatty goose is just too funny to not snicker at over and over again.

Despite those things though, we have to remember who this film was made for: kids. I don't believe they are going to even know who most of the people playing the characters are, much less care how the film was shot. The constant jokes will be enough the keep them happy and entertained. So even though it falls flat by normal standards, the fact that it can be enjoyed by children makes it okay in my book.

Who would've thought Bruce Willis would be playing a troubled NYPD officer and a mischievous raccoon both in the same year? Well he has, and done both quite well. Bruce Willis, along with Eugene Levy, Nick Nolte, Wanda Sykes, & many others appear in the all-new Dreamworks animation, 'Over the Hedge'. Which is brought to us by the director of 1998's 'Antz', Tim Johnson, and the producer of last year's hit 'Madagascar' and the writer of the upcoming 'Charlotte's Web', Karey Kirkpatrick.

In 'Over the Hedge' we are taken into what is left of some woodland creature's home, now invaded by suburban life and surrounded by an encompassing hedge. They now have a dilemma. Where are they going to find food? That's where Bruce Willis' character, RJ the raccoon comes in. He explains to them on the other side of the hedge that there are plenty of delicious varieties of food. Including Hammy the squirrel's (Steve Carell) new favorite, nacho cheese flavored chips. While Verne the turtle (Garry Shandling) is skeptical and warns the others that it isn't safe over the hedge they all go along with RJ anyways in hopes of retrieving tasty treats. What they are unaware of is that RJ only wants to gather food for a hungry bear (Nick Nolte) so he himself doesn't get killed.

'Over the Hedge' is nowhere near other animated films like 'Shrek' and 'Toy Story' in terms of greatness. It lacks a certain quality that is inexplicable. But its still highly enjoyable. The animation itself is very good, there's lots of funny moments for both children and adults to enjoy, and the story is good. (Although there are a few flaws in it, but nothing major.) The good thing is 'Over the Hedge' isn't being made out to be what those other films were. From being based on a comic strip it sure turned out to be pretty good. If you haven't seen it already, I suggest you take some time and go see what's over the hedge. You might just see something you like.

Following in the footsteps of 'Charlotte's Web', which opened last weekend, 'Night at the Museum' brings to life another book on the silver screen. Only this time, the result is nothing short of great. Where 'Charlotte's Web' fell short, 'Museum' succeeds in more ways than one.

Based on Milan Trenc's book of the same name, 'Night at the Museum' takes us into the life of Larry Daley, played by Ben Stiller, which ends up being turned upside down when he becomes the night watchman at the Museum of Natural History. A playful Tyrannosaurus, mischievous monkey, & the wild Attila the Hun are just a few of the things he encounters while on duty during his first night. The next day Larry decides the job is a bit too much for him to handle, and says farewell. He then changes his mind only moments later, so that he may prove to his son that he is able to keep a job. Following some advice from one of the previous watchman, he reads up on some things in history. What he learns, ends up helping him maintain order at night in the museum. Just as everything appears to be going well, the very object that gives life to the museum is stolen. This leaves everything within it cold and inanimate. Larry must now retrieve the item from the thieves and restore the wonder which it brings to the museum.

'Night at the Museum' is definitely the best family film of 2006. I knew it was going to do well at the box office, but I never would have predicted it to be so good. I mean come on, the book it's based on is intended for children aged four to eight. The first eight minutes, I admit, are quite dull. I was even a little worried at first. My doubt was quickly washed away though once the Tyrannosaurus came to life. From that moment on, it was sheer fun all the way until the end.

The only weak point here is the quality of acting. Aside from Van Dyke, everyone was pretty much just okay. That heartfelt speech Larry gives to his son at the beginning really doesn't come off as it should have. Luckily though, that doesn't take away from the all the other great things the film offers. The rip-roaring chase scenes, intriguing graphics, & loony shenanigans are more than enough to make up for what it lacks in the actor's performances.

I had no expectations for 'Museum'. It turned out to be completely refreshing. Levy's adaptation is not only creative, but imaginative as well. If you go to see one movie this weekend, make sure it's 'Night at the Museum'. Until now, history has never been so exciting.

Olive (Abigail Breslin), Richard (Greg Kinnear), Sheryl (Toni Collette), Dwayne (Paul Dano), Frank (Steve Carell), & someone simply known as Grandpa (Alan Arkin) all make up the Hoover family. Together they are traveling in a run-down yellow VW bus from Albuquerque to Redondo Beach in order to get 7-year-old Olive to the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, where she will hopefully be crowned the winner. As simple a task that may seem, the trip proves to be a difficult, yet enriching one. On their journey the family must deal with heartbreak, shattered dreams, & even death, all the while learning to support and trust one another no matter what life throws their way.

First time directors, Faris and Dayton, have created a remarkably and genuinely excellent film. From the amazing cast and their splendid performances to the hilarious screenplay written by Michael Arndt, 'Little Miss Sunshine' is hands down one best films of the year.

The great thing about each character that is apart of the Hoover family and featured in the movie, is that they're all so very realistic. The most distinctive and memorable members of the family would have to be Olive's older brother, Dwayne and Grandpa. Dwayne presents the characteristics of what many kids today consider themselves today as "emo". As the film advances, we learn he is actually just your average teenager that's simply misunderstood and not "emo" at all. Then there's Grandpa; wisecracking, heroin snorting, kicked out of the retirement home for sleeping around Grandpa. Arkin does a terrific job with this role. He brings not only the character's written personality to life, but adds his own flare as well with his great facial expressions that only fuels the entertaining hoopla presented in 'Little Miss Sunshine'.

The hilarity doesn't seem to stop even when death tries to darken the movie's comedic stance. Grandpa's rantings alone make the movie worth seeing. The irony that Olive's dad, Richard, is a motivational speaker who day in, day out informs people about how to achieve their goals, yet he himself can't accomplish anything is just of the several added bonuses.

After changing my mind three times; first deciding to see 'The Illusionist', then again to 'The Black Dahlia', and finally agreeing upon 'Little Miss Sunshine' I'm really glad I did. There's not a funnier or better cast film out right now. The bottom line is 'Little Miss Sunshine' is an absolute winner and one of the few must-see films of the year. The only reason not to see it would be because it's no longer playing at your theater. In which case you then find another theater in your area that is.

When a film features a cast with names like John Travolta, Laura Dern, Salma Hayek, & James Gandolfini you would expect it to be excellent wouldn't you? Unfortunately, this is not the case with Todd Robinson's, 'Lonely Hearts'. While it is decent, it's a shame to see so much potential wasted.

'Lonely Hearts' depicts the story of Martha Beck, played by Salma Hayek, and Raymond Fernandez, played by Jared Leto. The duo are more commonly known as the Lonely Hearts Killers. They travel across the country scheming widows and spinsters out of their money. Once the two have their grasp on the unsuspecting women's fortune, they murder them and proceed onto the next target. As the duo start to become a bit sloppy on their route, detectives Robinson and Hildebrandt, played by Travolta and Gandolfini, begin to get closer to capturing them. As time passes it appears their killing spree just may be over.

The cast named here is really good, at least on paper. I don't know what happened, but something went wrong here. There is absolutely no chemistry between Travolta and Dern. It's almost like they hate each other. Nicole Kidman would have been much more fitting choice to play the role of Rene. Her candidness could have added just the right element needed to make the on screen relationship work. The best acting exhibited here though is by the beautiful Salma Hayek. She is flawless as she exudes complete acrimoniousness and madness in her role as Martha Beck. It'll be no surprise to me if this time next year we hear her name among the buzz for an Oscar nod for best supporting actress.

In addition to the mismatch of Travolta and Dern, director and writer Robinson further screws up what could have been with a partly repulsive script. Most of Ganfolfini's narratives are stagnant and repetitive. Of course, not much can be expected from Robinson taking into consideration his poor track record. Neither of his first two films, both documentaries, were successful.

Never fear, all is not lost. Where Robinson fails in his screenplay, he makes up for it with his lovely directing. I would even go as far to say it's right on par with Alfonso Cuaron's amazing achievement, 'Children of Men'. So even despite it having a few weak points, I still recommend seeing 'Lonely Hearts' upon it's release to theaters this March.

Brothers Dean (Taylor Handley) and Eric Hill (Matthew Bomer), along with their girlfriends are on a trip across Texas, which will end with Eric getting Dean to enlist in the Marine Corps. This plan is put a stop when the group is confronted and followed by a ruthless biker named Alex (Cyia Batten). She causes the gang of friends to get into an accident which throws Chrisse (Jordana Brewster) from the vehicle and into nearby brush. Just as Alex attempts to rob them, Sheriff Hoyt (R. Lee Ermey) shows up and kills her. As Chrisse watches from the brush Hoyt orders her friends into his patrol car. He then takes them to the Hewitt family's house where Thomas (Andrew Bryniarski), who inevitably becomes Leatherface, is. Now it's all left up to Chrisse to save her friends from the horror waiting.

No question goes unanswered in Johnathan Liebesman's 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning'. We find out how Hoyt got the title of sheriff, how Monty lost his legs, & of course how Thomas Hewitt becomes Leatherface. Unfortunately though, Thomas' transition to Leatherface is overshadowed by Hoyt. Unlike the 2003 remake by Marcus Nispel, he doesn't share the spotlight with Leatherface, He steals almost, if not all of it and deservedly so.

R. Lee Ermey's character, although one of the villains, is the most likable featured. I don't think that for even a second during the film did I find myself rooting for the group of friends. With good one-liners and natural heinousness Hoyt proves to be the best part of the revival of the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' series.

Story wise this prequel is okay. It basically tells everything needed to be known about Thomas in the end becomes Leatherface. (Even though it might not be quite as interesting as hoped.) The biggest complaint I hear though regarding the story is that his childhood isn't brought to life. Beforehand I was expecting to see that included in the film. After seeing it though, I realized something. It's actually for the better that it wasn't shown because seeing him at age nine and being ridiculed for his deformities would only make the viewer either pity or laugh at him. This in the end would only undermine Leatherface and get rid of the terror that he supposedly evokes from the audience.

The bottom line is, the movie sets out was it was made to do, tell Leatherface's origin. It's too bad the Hoyt's side story outshines that. And the film's not bad, it just pales in comparison to the 2003 remake. I will say this though. For whoever makes the next one in the series, I have a suggestion: give Hoyt a chainsaw. It'd be far more interesting to watch.

More and more films about dancing are being released each year. Since 2000 sixteen have come out. Most of them revolve around rivalry, romance, & a life lesson. Director Sylvain White's latest effort, 'Stomp the Yard' is no different. Taking on an all too familiar scenario, White fails to provide us with anything new story wise. Luckily for him, the dance routines are engrossing and impressive enough to nearly make you forget about that.

Shortly after a fight over a dance battle that results in the death of his brother Duron, played by Chris Brown, Columbus Short's character, DJ moves from Los Angeles to Atlanta to attend Truth University. Once there a girl by the name of April, played by Meagan Good, catches his eye. After a few failed attempts of talking to her, he finally gets his chance. It's also at this time he learns she already has a boyfriend. The boyfriend, Grant, played by Darrin Henson, actually turns out to be the leader of the elite stepping fraternity, Mu Gamma Xi. They eventually try to recruit DJ, but he refuses. The underdog rival team, Theta Nu Theta does the same. Reluctantly DJ accepts and brings some of his street-style moves to their old school routine. This creates even more tension between the two which is pushed to brink when DJ continues to pursue April. Preparing for the upcoming national step competition he is forced to work with his fellow team members. In order to win, he must put aside his own want and realize it's not about just him, but about the team itself.

With a synopsis of that length you'd think 'Stomp the Yard' has a lot to offer. The truth of the matter is, if it weren't for the great dancing fueled by the bass-heavy hip hop soundtrack, this film would fall faster than Nicole Richie's body mass. It does start out strong with the exciting battle in Los Angeles and the grim death of Duron. After that, the film is just like most others released recently. It trots along with its mediocre storytelling and acting. It gets to where you're about to throw the towel in and abandon all hope for the film. You know what I'm talking about. It's the point when you start to repeatedly check your watch seeing how many more minutes are left before you get to leave the theater. It's then that they come. The boredom fades and excitement ignites once again as the electrifying, high energy, crazy dance scenes all start up again.

Those scenes alone are worth seeing the film. It's too bad the message of the film is overshadowed by the dancing. Not to mention the foxy Meagan Good, who practically demands you to look at her when she's on the screen. Still, 'Stomp the Yard' is an all around enjoyable viewing experience even with its well-known storyline and bleak instances.

Back in the company of Captain Jack Sparrow, (Johnny Depp) we are again taken on an escapade of the melancholy and mischievous sort. This time Jack is on a search for the Dead Man's Chest. For once he possesses it he will be able to control the one who he owes a debt to. The ruler of the sea, Davy Jones. (Bill Nighy) But what would this quest be without the assistance of his fellow chum Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his bride-to-be Elizabeth Swann? (Keira Knightly) They too are inevitably drug into this whirlwind of non-stop "comedy" and various mishaps. All the while is Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) also yearning to get the chest as well so he can single-handedly rid the seas of pirates everywhere.

Usually sequels don't surpass the greatness and originality their predecessors establish. 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest' doesn't fail to follow suit. From the trailers it appears to be an exciting thrill ride loaded with tons of merriment. But in reality its a two hour and thirty five minute foreseeable film filled with humdrum antics and sleep inducing banter.

The first 'Pirates' was absolutely one hundred percent far more delightful. Before it, a character with humor and essence such as Captain Jack Sparrow hadn't been seen in cinema. A once amusing and engaging Jack is now just plain annoying. Here in 'Dead Man's Chest' his foolhardy, joker demeanor only halts the story as it attempts to progress. In addition, average acting and direction are dishearteningly unveiled. The only pleasing aspects presented are the outstanding visuals and devilishly good villain Davy Jones. I'm afraid neither of these ingredients are able to save this mess of a film from sinking though.

The bottom line is, 'Dead Man's Chest' is nothing more than a film built on hype and in the end has no real substance. "I think the second movie is strong and clever and has a lot going on", said director Gore Verbinski in an October interview last year when speaking about 'Pirates'. Apparently this version of the film didn't make the final cut. Even so, 'Dead Man's Chest' will without a doubt continue to dominate at the movies and make other summer releases walk the plank at the box office. I don't think even Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx's big screen adaptation of 'Miami Vice' will be able to decimate it when released this Friday. I guess I can give Verbinski some credit though. It's pretty amazing to see a film with video-game logic that's created from zip do so tremendous.

The evening of June 16, 1959 would prove to be a memorable one for millions of adoring fans of the popular TV show 'The Adventures of Superman' as it's star actor, George Reeves (Ben Affleck), is found dead in his home. Reeves' death is said to be suicide and is quickly closed by the Los Angeles Police Department. But is there more to it than that? Private detective Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) believes so. He seeks out Reeves' mother, Helen Bessolo (Lois Smith), who is also not completely convinced that her son's end isn't simply suicide. After meeting her, Simo is then hired by her to investigate the questionable circumstances. He explores all possibilities of murder and as a result comes up with various suspects. There's the woman Reeves was once obliged to, Toni Mannix (Diane Lane) the wife of Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), the executive of MGM Studios, who also appears on the list, and finally Reeves' finance-to-be, Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney). High and low Simo searches trying to uncover the truth in the Hollywood who done it mystery, all the while discovering unsettling similarities between Reeves' life and his own.

At first glance, the trailers for 'Hollywoodland' make the film out to be a seemingly compelling murder story. Upon actually seeing it though you'll soon realize, after about the first twenty minutes, it's merely a sub par one. Once it begins you're in for an almost dismal ride that ends up going nowhere. One of its issues is that all the "likely" murder scenarios lack any evidence. The only thing that even holds each person as a suspect is some sort of motive, which only adds to the film's already stagnant disposition.

Next you have the ghastly performance given by Affleck. The fact he plays Reeves is ironic in a sad way. Here we have a mediocre actor playing a mediocre actor who hates himself because he's viewed by the public as a joke. The only difference is Affleck has yet to come to the realization that he himself is also a joke. Yes, I will give him some credit, there are a couple of split seconds where he actually does really well, but its nothing really worth mentioning. As for Brody, all I'll say is he's okay. He's not great, he's not lousy, just plainly okay. It's Lane that truly shines here. She does an absolutely amazing job with her role as the emotionally unstable Toni Mannix. I hope when Oscar time comes around she gets a nod. Sadly, all the other members of the cast present only ordinary performances.

I'm disappointed in the way 'Hollywoodland' turned out. I believed it was going to be really good, and all it ended up being was just fair. I suppose I shouldn't have had such high expectations for a film that's director, Allen Coulter, had only done TV shows up until this point. I will admit, it's not all bad. The style and retro visuals were nice, but all in all, the only thing offered is an outstanding performance from Diane Lane. Much like the story told in the film, 'Hollywoodland' is nothing more than a film filled with all glitz and no glamour.

2006 has turned out to be the year for digital animation. From talking cars to suburban turned forest animals it seems like we've almost seen it all…or so we thought. The fresh and upbeat penguin-filled musical 'Happy Feet' is the thirteenth digitally animated film to be released this year. And as expected, people are eating it up. Some have gone as far to say it's the year's best. There was better this year, but 'Happy Feet' is okay.

In 'Happy Feet' we are given front row seats to the birth and growth of a penguin by the name of Mumble who is voiced by Elijah Wood. He's different from all the other penguins. In a world where finding your "heartsong" is crucial, poor Mumble isn't able to keep a tune at all. Interestingly enough though, he can dance up a storm. Unfortunately this is frowned upon and ends up causing him great distress. Eventually the elder penguin Noah, who is voiced by Hugo Weaving, accuses Mumble of bringing on the famine that is currently afflicting the penguins. Mumble attempts to explain that he believes "aliens" are the real cause. Noah doesn't take him seriously at all and banishes him, claiming that once he is gone, the famine will end. Mumbles then promises that he will return, and when he does he will bring proof that the alleged "aliens" are to blame. He then embarks on his journey where along the way he makes some new friends and learns the world outside his own is much different than he could have ever thought possible.

Visually, 'Happy Feet' is amazing. Almost every landscape down to the smallest icicle look so very real. Even the penguins themselves are highly detailed, but obviously aren't real. Aside from that and the direction from Greg Miller, everything presented in 'Happy Feet' is just okay. Nothing in it evokes a wholehearted wow. The plot itself takes what seems forever to be revealed. There's a forty five minute wait before anything about a famine is even mentioned. Watching the film is a lot like riding a roller coaster. No, I don't mean its a thrill ride. The way the story is set up, it goes up and down. Each time it begins to drag, something comes along to get it going again. And when the ending finally comes, it appears forced. The whole addition of an environmental issue still has me wondering. I guess because without it there would be nothing for Mumble to do on his journey of discovery.

The main issue I have with 'Happy Feet' though revolves around the music. Yes, I know it's a musical, but the music seemed to really exceed the film itself. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. The reason being is because the film suggests that there actually is a real story behind it all. Either way, it doesn't really matter because it's the singing and dancing that will have people returning to see it all again. So despite having some assuredly bad qualities 'Happy Feet' does indeed have its moments. It does what it was supposed to, and that's entertain.

We've seen it before. A new teacher overly excited about her job and ability to impact the lives of young people has her hopes shattered by a group of inner city kids. Various obstacles arise along the way while she refuses to give up on them. Her determination and effort in the end are rewarded as her hopes are revived and turned into reality. 'Freedom Writers' has that familiar plot which it transforms into a predictable, yet emotional ride.

Inspired by the true story, 'Freedom Writers' stars Hilary Swank as the ambitious Erin Gruwell. Walking through the hallways and peeking into classrooms of the school, she is filled with nothing but excitement on her first day. She's ready to teach and make a difference in the lives of her students. That changes though once a fight breaks out in her very first class. This wake up call warns Erin that teaching may be a lot tougher than she thought. The days pass and difficulty increases, but she just sucks it up and hopes it will all get better soon. It doesn't though, and Erin is now at her breaking point. Just when succeeding with the kids appears to be unachievable an idea comes to her. The result of that idea is greater than anything she could have dreamed of.

At the start, Swank overplays the optimistic Gruwell. She makes her just a little too good to be true, and more comical than perky. That quickly fades as time passes. Swank eventually loses the laughs and gains respect as she fits the role like a glove by emulating strength and kindness.

The film itself follows the same pattern. Only the pattern isn't entirely consistent. It's similar to when you travel down a neighborhood road. As you drive you experience a smooth ride. Then all of a sudden it happens; you hit a speed bump. The heartfelt and touching occurrences in the film are like the speed bumps. And just like speed bumps, they last for but a short time and, are easily forgettable.

All of those instances are like that, except for one. No words can describe the scene where April Lee Hernandez's character, Eva, explains her hate for white people during class, bringing Gruwell to tears. It unquestionably gets an A, as it takes the title of the best scene in the film. The final scene is supposed to provoke almost the same intensity, but doesn't because of it's predictability. Instead of being a speed bump, it's an unwelcome dip in the road.

All in all, 'Freedom Writers' is okay. It's nicely written, and Swank is really good. The instability of it's overall flow though does take a tremendous amount of its momentum. So while it does have its moments, I'll choose 'Dangerous Minds' over it any day.

Based on the 1946 Pulitzer Prize winning book written by Robert Penn Warren and a remake of the 1949 film of the same title, 'All the King's Men' tells the story of southern politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Jack Burden (Jude Law) is a newspaper columnist in New Orleans who after a deadly school tragedy convinces Stark to take his, at the time small following, and attempt to become governor. It's not long though until Stark realizes his running is but a ploy to "split the cracker" vote so the current governor can be re-elected. He then holds no punches as he takes his own path and wins over every person considered to be a hick. He accomplishes this by repeatedly enforcing the fact that he too is a hick and if elected will do his mightiest to serve them well. This in the end gets him his seat in the governor's mansion. As time passes though, Stark himself begins to travel down the road those he initially spoke against when he starts to take what are thought to be means that are inappropriate to get his way.

Zaillian's reconstruction of 'All the King's Men' starts out decidedly strong with its nicely written script and marvelous acting by Penn. Shortly after the election of Stark as governor though the film quickly loses it's drive and becomes a bit glum with only, sparse but nonetheless sharp moments. No one except for Penn is able to pull off a believable Louisiana accent. (Hopkins, who plays Judge Irwin, doesn't even try.) It's too bad they aren't able to because the script is actually really good. Of course what else could we expect from Zaillian? He is after all the same person who wrote the screenplays for 'Gangs of New York' and 'Schindler's List'.

It's not entirely the actor's fault that the movie isn't up to par. Where Zaillian's brilliant writing ends, his mediocre directing begins. When a movie is only two hours of length, yet feels to be three, you know something went wrong. The most awful moment would have to be just before the closing scenes, that being the assassination of Stark and death of his killer. It was horribly long, and painfully boring. Once they're dead, they're dead. There's no need for five minutes of aerial spinning around two dead bodies with close-ups here and there of their blood flowing into one stream.

'All the King's Men' isn't totally bad though. As I stated, Penn is great. The screen lights up with intensity and passion when he's speaking to the people. And although the other actors weren't capable of delivering stunning performances, the well written script makes the film good enough to sit and watch. The bottom line is, yes there was much more that could've been done to improve the film, but despite the weak direction and overall acting, 'All the King's Men' is highly underrated and is worth viewing at least once.

Lately Dr. Lynn Denoln (Bahar Soomekh) has been going through some marital problems and the anxiety is beginning to affect her work. Late one night after finishing her shift at the hospital she is kidnapped and taken to an abandoned warehouse. Shortly after waking up, she soon meets the notorious Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). He is currently dying slowly as the minutes pass and Amanda (Shawnne Smith), Jigsaw's sidekick, tells Lynn she has been kidnapped in order to keep him alive. Alive long enough for someone else that's also been kidnapped named Jeff (Angus MacFadyen), to complete his very own game. While telling Lynn this, Amanda places a collar around Lynn's neck that is connected to Jigsaw's heart rate. If his heart rate drops below zero before Jeff completes his game, the shotgun shells on the collar will all simultaneously go off at the same time. Amanda then preps Lynn as Jigsaw explains, "it's a test of will. It's a test to see just how willing you are to keep someone alive". Lynn realizes she has no choice, and so the game begins. Jeff must now navigate through a series of tasks where he is promised his chance to get revenge on the man responsible for his son's death. Something he has wanted every day for the last three years. Both Lynn and Jeff are now each tangled in a horrid game of survival. What they don't know is their games are merely stepping stones to the true reason they are involved with Jigsaw's latest puzzle.

First off, I have to admit I was a little turned off to 'Saw III' earlier this week after months of having much anticipation, when I heard it was guaranteed that there would be a 'Saw 4' if 'III' did well opening weekend. I feared then, and still do slightly, that the 'Saw' franchise will become what 'Friday the 13th' did: a series of films where only the first few were considered good. Once I was sitting in my seat at the theater though, and the film began I was vastly interested far more than I imagined I would be. This 'Saw' has so much story in it than the previous two had, and really more than most horror films today do. Much of it is told generally with various flashbacks. Even by following the story closely, the final twist probably won't be known to you until its unveiling. It's in the twist that a tiny smidgen of a problem exists.

It's obvious that the twist was meant to shock the audience in a big way. Maybe it does catch most people by surprise, but for me didn't. Not that it isn't good, it just didn't come across the way it should have. It gave me a, oh...okay feeling rather than a, holy sh*t reaction. This minor flaw doesn't hinder the film's poise at all though. It still remains interesting to the very last minute.

The only real letdown in the film are some of the traps. In all there is a total of six physical ones. These devices of torture and terror are what many of people who love the 'Saw' series look forward to most. Out of the six, only two were what I'd say good. Yes, all of them can kill, but four of them seemed boring and livid. I'm not sure what happened here. Although, this doesn't destroy the movie, in a small way it does take away from it. Even so, the two good traps almost make up for the others.

So basically, 'Saw III' is somewhat better than I expected. It borders very closely to the feel of the first, which is a definite plus. Most satisfying though is that it wasn't the least bit dismal. Never was there a dull moment, even with the few shoddy traps. Now that 'Saw III' is done and over with though, it only makes me question what '4' have in store for us. Yes, Tobin Bell was contracted for five films permitting each is considered a success, but now that director Bousman and writer Whannell have decided to step aside and leave the series alone, I can only wonder two things. Will 'Saw' become a victim of its own game? Just how long can the series go on before it suffers the fate Jason Voorhees did?