Reviews

Clint Eastwood returns as The Man With No Name in this final installment in Sergio Leone's epic Dollars Trilogy (or Man With No Name Trilogy). He plays Blondie (the Good), a sharp-shooter of debatable honor, iron will, and questionable motives. Leone also brings back Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes (the Bad), a sadistic man who always keeps his promises – as long as you pay him for it. Eli Wallach rounds out the trio as Tuco (the Ugly), a thief worried only about his own hide. The three men are held together by the wish to locate a stash of gold, its location imparted to them by a dying man. Alas, things are not so simple. The man whispers some of the information to Tuco, but only Blondie knows the true location. And so our thieves must overcome backstabbing and betrayal, as well as their mutual enemy of Angel Eyes, to reach the treasure.

Sergio Leone creates a visual masterpiece. Not even Orson Welles can hold the audience in his hands the way Leone can. The cinematography and editing are perfectly in sync, working together to mold the audience as Leone sees fit. The famous Mexican standoff, with its rapid-fire cutting and incredibly close shots, is jaw dropping, forcing you to hold your breath. And of course, the film simply could not work without Ennio Morricone's incredible (I repeat, incredible) score. Even if you don't bother seeing the movie, look up The Ecstasy of Gold on YouTube. It will leave you speechless and blow your mind.

After a disastrous experience with my first foray into Westerns (for the record, "Shane" is a horrific movie), I all but damned the entire genre to the pits of hell. But after repeatedly spying "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" atop film lists, I decided to give it a try. It had me on the edge of my seat, my eyes shining, my entire being entranced. In my opinion, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is one of the most spectacular movies ever made. Is it historically accurate? No. Is the plot nice and tight? Not really. But those are trivial matters in the face of what it is – an incredible spaghetti western. And as far as I am concerned, it is one of the best movies ever made.

Scott Hick's "Snow Falling on Cedars" is a lovely film – really it is. Based on the book by David Guterson, "Snow Falling on Cedars" surrounds a murder trial taking place on a small fishing island off the coast of Washington State. Kazuo Miyamoto (Rick Yune) is on trial for the murder of a fisherman, Carl Heine (Eric Thal). But of course, the trial isn't simply a matter of murder, it's a matter of racial prejudice in a post-WWII era. Covering the story for the local newspaper is Ishmael Chambers (Ethan Hawke); who just happens to be in love with Miyamoto's wife, Hatsue (Youki Kudoh).

The story is good. Rather "Casablanca"-esque. Maybe a little bit of "To Kill a Mockingbird", but it works. The screenplay, too, is well written with dialogue that fits the story and Hicks's point (he served as screenwriter in addition to directing).

Acting wise, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is fine. Just fine. Nothing outrageously bad. Nothing outrageously good. (Although Max von Sydow gives a notable performance as Nels and Yune's performance is not without its merits) Ishmael Chambers is Hawke's standard role: brooding, compassionate, emotionally and physically wounded. But his performance is poor. The character deserved cold passion – not just distant stares. This is a film, not a book. We have no way of knowing what is going on inside our protagonist's head. The casting of Kudoh as Hatsue might have been a mistake as well. Not that she isn't good (she's fine), but it is a notable part of the story that Hatsue and Kazuo – though of Japanese heritage – are *Americans*.

No one can ignore the beautiful cinematography of "Snow Falling on Cedars". The images of the island in winter are breathtaking. In that aspect, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is almost a Western in that the landscape and weather are as much a part of the story as the characters we are faced with. And from that, comes the editing. What can be said about the editing? It's safe to say that "Snow Falling on Cedars" would never have been released had it been created in Hollywood's Studio Era. Rather, the editors would have had their heads chopped up and their bodies impaled on pikes as warnings to all editors to come: DO NOT MAKE EDITING OBVIOUS. IT DISTRACTS FROM THE STORY. In "Snow Falling on Cedars", there is no way that you *cannot* notice the editing. It's – everywhere. All the time. In fact, it's practically omniscient. To put it gently, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is just one giant montage. To put it frankly, someone got a *little* too happy when it came to editing. And by a little too happy, I mean a LOT too happy. There is not a single five minute sequence without some sort of creative editing tweak or artistic camera angle. This is Hicks's attempt to out-gloss, out-imagine Orson Welles and "Citizen Kane." And it ruins the movie. The editing is just so pretentious and *there* that nothing else exists on screen.

"Snow Falling on Cedars" had potential. But it fails miserably. The cinematography and scenery may be stunning, but the editing ruins the film. No, I take that back. It doesn't ruin the film, it drops a nice big atomic bomb on it, so that all the audience gets is an f-ed up collage of gloss better suited for a midnight avant-garde screening than a full fledged cinema. A waste of my time. Avoid at all costs.

Orson Welles's film noir classic Touch of Evil (1958) explores themes of obsession, blame and corruption on both sides of the Us-Mexico border. Touch of Evil begins when a car crossing the border from Mexico explodes on the American side of the border. Thereby launching Miguel Vargas (Charlton Heston), a high ranking Mexican narcotics official on his honeymoon with his American wife, Susie (Janet Leigh), into the path of Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles), a legendary American cop marred by candy bars and bigotry. Quinlan will stop at nothing to bring about justice where he believes justice is deserved, even when it means planting evidence. When Vargas catches him planting evidence, Quinlan sees the only way to quiet Vargas is to discredit him. Quinlan teams up with "Uncle Joe" Grandi (Akim Tamiroff), a local Mexican gangster who has his own reasons for hating Vargas.

For content and visual appeal, Touch of Evil is an excellent film. The cinematography by Russell Metty is breathtaking. But the shots do not exist merely for cosmetic appeal. While the character of Quinlan is skillfully written and Welles gives a magnificent performance, the low and high angle shots are what really drive the audience to loathe him; displaying him in the most unflattering light possible. Accentuating the ever present sweat on his face and the thick layer of fat covering his entire being. The music and sounds are all very authentic and come from the actual surroundings that the characters are in. When a car drives by we can hear the radio but the music fades as the car distances itself from the camera. This is a nice effect and one that is rarely seen in films, no matter the genre or era.

Touch of Evil showed up at the tail end of the film noir cycle. By 1953, the femme fatale character has disappeared, as had her detective lover. However, the characters retain many of the traditional film noir characteristics. Our two main characters, Vargas and Quinlan, are both morally ambiguous – Quinlan in particular. His action are evil but the motives behind his actions are difficult to classify as either good or bad. Although he isn't the quintessential detective, Vargas retains nearly all of the characteristcs of the film noir hero. He knows how to access places that tend to be locked up and restricted, and he has the street smarts and lives on the fringes of the dark and sleazy underworld, all the while being looked down upon by his American associates. Distortion techniques and low angle shots are heavily used to deglamorize the stars, Welles in particular. In nearly every shot of Quinlan, his colossal gut seems to take up a good chunk of the screen, even when it could be done without. Welles uses lighting heavily throughout the film to set the tone and keep the audience's attention. In the opening shot, rather than watch the man set the bomb, we follow his shadow as it skitters across the side of a building. Flashlights are used while Vargas searches for Susie at the motel, highlighting his struggle to make light of the situation. Welles also makes use of the dark urban setting surrounding the border with wet streets, steam rising from the street grates and garbage floating in the river.

Touch of Evil is an excellent film technically speaking. It's a tale of morality that makes you think and the shooting style is smooth and great to watch. A film with an honest lesson that everyone should see.

Stephen Sommers' "The Mummy" (1999) is exactly what a summer action-adventure flick should be. "The Mummy" begins in ancient Egypt when the Pharaoh's choice concubine, Anck Su Namun (Patricia Velasquez) and High Priest Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo), kill the Pharaoh and Anck Su Namun kills herself. Heartbroken, Imhotep attempts to raise her from the dead, but is stopped by the Pharaoh's guards. For his crime, Imhotep is mummified alive and cursed, never to enter the after life. But in 1923, an archaeological dig awakens the Mummy. Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser), Evelyn Carnahan (Rachel Weisz) and her brother, Jonathon (John Hannah), vow to destroy the Mummy. They are aided by the mysterious Ardeth Bay (Oded Fehr), a man who's people have guarded the Mummy for centuries. When I first saw the cast list for "The Mummy", I was skeptic; Brendan Fraser as an action hero? But he pulls it off and is exactly what the character of Rick requires- a goofy guy who somehow manages to save the world. Weisz is wonderful as well. Surprisingly, Evelyn Carnahan is a dimensional character, rather than just some floozy stuck into the film as a romantic interest for our hero. But the best performance has to go to John Hannah. Whenever he is on screen, I can't take my eyes off of him and I laugh at almost every line he utters. As it is a Stephen Sommers film, the special effects are of course amazing – for 1999 at least, and are quite good even now. I like to call the mummy a "pre-Pirates of the Caribbean creature". But it's great despite the major advancements since then. The script is also well done (it was written by Sommers as well), containing some incredibly entertaining dialogue and plot twists. If you are like me and enjoy action-adventure films, than "The Mummy" is another film you must see. Definitely in my top 10 films.

George Stevens' Shane (1953) is the story of a reformed gunslinger who attempts to settle down with a pioneer family but is forced to come out of retirement when a settler/rancher conflict escalates violently. Shane stars Alan Ladd as the title character, a man who finds that despite his best efforts, a tiger doesn't change its stripes. Shane moves in with the Starrett family, Joe, Marian, and Joey, played by Van Heflin, Jean Arthur and Brandon De Wilde respectively. The Starrett's and their friends are being harassed by an old rancher played by Emile Meyer, and his cronies – particularly a ruthless gunslinger played by a young Jack Palance.

Shane is the classic, stereotypical Western. But Western films have never relied on originality to sell tickets. So what makes Shane such an iconic Western? What sets it apart from it's fellow cattle? Loyal Griggs' magnificent, Oscar winning cinematography for one, and the surprisingly realistic editing by William Hornbeck and Tom McAdoo for another. Griggs allowed the audience to feel the presence of that omniscient character that resides in all Western films – the scenery. Every shot reveals as much of the picturesque landscape as possible, even in close-up shots when a telephoto lens was employed to keep as much scenery as possible in focus. Hornbeck and McAdoo do some of the better editing I've come across in Westerns. The "night" shots are edited smoothly enough so that one is under the vague impression that there is just a freakishly bright moon out in the Old West. I am sure that in 1953, Shane was an astounding film. The fact that it won one Academy Award and was nominated for five others is a good indication. However, 53 years later, Shane is, to say the least, painfully dated. Westerns have no niche in the modern film market and with the lack of special effects and sex, there is really nothing to keep a modern audience's attention. Shane drags for the entire 118 minute run. You know how it's going to end – and the cliché ending is not the only thing dating Shane. There's the dialogue. It is excruciating! No matter what the line is, you can't help but cringe and worry about whoever wrote that particular line. Shane's line to Joey, "You go home to your mother and your father and grow up to be strong and straight." Is alarming, and rather offensive, to a modern audience. In fact, some of the wholesome characters themselves are offensive. Joey in particular has not stood the test of time. Any of his lines involving Shane are quite disturbing, particularly his line to his mother, "Mother, I just love Shane." But that is not to say that the entire movie is dated. The final shoot-out deserves its reputation as one of the best shoot-outs ever captured on film, even 53 years later.

Although it may have been a brilliant film at one point, I cannot appreciate Shane. I can respect its costuming and its cinematography, but not the film itself. If I was flipping through the channels on TV and came across Shane, I wouldn't stay on it. Iconic as it may be, there is nothing about Shane that is entertaining. Maybe I just can't grasp the gem beneath the dust, but trust me; it would take a threat of a root canal without pain killers to get me to watch Shane again.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not my favorite of the Harry Potter movies, but it is very good nonetheless.

It's fun to see how Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have grown as actors since the first film. Not to say that they were bad when they were younger, but they are far better in this film, than in any of the others. Emma Watson's performance in particular was very good, and I at least think that she is the best actor of the 3 of them. I loved Brendan Gleeson as Mad-Eye Moody. He was perfect! Insane and totally wacko, I loved his performance. Another performance I loved was Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. Brilliant! He definitely captured the essence of the character. I did have problem with Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory. Granted, he looks the part, but he doesn't act it – at least not as I envisioned the character while reading the book. The only major character disappointment was the lack of Sirius Black. I really wish that he had been included more, but oh well.

The Goblet of Fire is stunningly shot. Definitely deserved the nomination for Best Achievement in Art Direction at the Oscars.

My biggest problem with The Goblet of Fire I blame entirely on Mike Newell. Perhaps I am wrong to lay the blame on him and instead it should be laid upon the producers, so correct me if I'm wrong. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire runs at 157 minutes. Longer than most films, but shorter than some. In their effort to keep the movie going at a snappy pace, the filmmakers have neglected all transitions except for the snappy cut. This is a huge irritance. You're watching the beginning of the movie and you think, "Cool! They're at the Quidditch Cup! Oh! The Cup is over. Oh! Now they're at Hogwarts." There's nothing to tell you that anytime has passed. I think that the audience would sacrifice a few seconds of their time for a well placed dissolve/fade out or two. Another place where they may have moved things to quickly is in the Graveyard. It's absolutely crucial to not only the plot of this movie, but the plots of all the Harry Potter movies to come, and I feel that it could have been lengthened a fair amount. The Yule Ball isn't incredibly important for the plot, but it takes up a fair space of time in the movie. Though beautifully shot, I believe they could have axed a large amount of that off and used that time in the Graveyard instead. And my last problem is just something that as a huge Harry Potter fan, I really wanted to see on film, the Quidditch World Cup. I think that would have been a ton of fun to watch, but it too was axed from the plot. Again, I would have given up most of the Yule Ball even for a small amount of the Quidditch Cup.

I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Though not my favorite of the Harry Potter movies, I thought that the acting was the best yet, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. 9/10

I should probably put this out on the table right away: I'm possibly the biggest fan of Pirates of the Caribbean ever. Biggest fan as in: I know all the words by heart and I remember 99% of all the tidbits I've ever picked up. And it shows. End of story. Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, let me get on to reviewing POTC: Dead Man's Chest. I've read several newspaper reviews and most of them say the same thing, that although the critics enjoyed the movie, they found it to be rather rambling and they were irked by the ending (or lack there of). I can see the truth in what they say, but that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it. Dead Man's Chest rocks. It's 150 minutes of pulse racing, jaw dropping, swashbuckling fun. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways:

+ Everyone has returned for a second time around on the ride. And I can guarantee you that this wouldn't work without the original cast and crew. Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio create another wonderful script for our enjoyment, full of the same enjoyable banter that we had the first time around. Many of the funnier lines are jokes that you will probably only get if you've seen The Curse of The Black Pearl, but that's not a problem in the slightest. {Jack's lines: "Elizabeth! Hide the rum." and "I'm still rooting for you mate"; Elizabeth fainting to get attention; as well as the constant correction that it's CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow.} Gore Verbinski and Jerry Bruckheimer return as director and producer respectfully; so the style is much the same, only a few shades darker. Hans Zimmer's score completely blows me away. It's not all brand new, which helps to link The Curse of the Black Pearl to Dead Man's Chest. The pulse racing music from the sword fights is redone, so that it's the same, but different. There are several scores using the organ, which adds this wonderful spine tingling atmosphere to the movie. A round of applause to whoever designed Davy Jones and his crew. And you thought that undead skeleton pirates were cool. If Dead Man's Chest is not nominated for Best Make-up at the Oscar's, it is a crime. + Captain Jack's back my friends. Johnny Depp delivers once again as the flamboyant, perpetually drunk captain of The Black Pearl. Some people may consider him to be TOO over the top, but I didn't see it that way at all. I doubt if he'll win a second Oscar nomination, but he's wonderful anyways. Orlando Bloom's Will Turner is much more self assured, and far less pathetic this time around. 99% pirate, we're almost there Will. Of our 3 main characters, Elizabeth is the one who's changed the most. She's learned to handle a sword, and she's much more independent. But man is she making the rounds! I have to say that by the end of Dead Man's Chest, I hate her – in the best way possible. Major snaps to Keira Knightley for her brilliant job. Not only does she deliver the most hilarious monologue in the movie, she's also an amazing swords-woman. Another brilliant return is Jack Davenport as the dethroned James Norrington. We encounter Norrington about half way through the movie, and he's no longer the prim sophisticated Commodore. Now he's a drunk, pot head, half out of his mind who's only wish is to regain what he's lost. Even going so far as to sign onto The Black Pearl. Kevin R. McNally's back as Mr. Gibbs and we love him. The gruffest, sweetest pirate around, he's wonderful. But the best performances would probably have to go to two new comers. Stellan Skarsgard and Bill Nighy. Skarsgard delivers as Bootstrap Bill Turner, one of the few crewmen of "The Flying Dutchman" who haven't lost their humanity. His performance as Will's father is touching and if you're sentimental like me, parts of it are down right heart breaking. But Bill Nighy steals the show as Davy Jones. He just looks… astounding! His range is amazing. He jumps from a cruel captain to a broken hearted romantic in a second. I don't know if he's applicable for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, but I really hope he's nominated. + Just like its predecessor, the sword fights in Dead Man's Chest are spine tingling. If you thought that a sword fight in and out of the moonlight was cool, check out this three way sword fight – part of which takes place on a detached water wheel. It gave me chills.

I understand why some people may not be completely enthralled by this movie. Like all movies, it is flawed. But they don't detract from the finished project in the slightest. But here they are anyway:

• The movie does ramble and I suppose that it is rather long. The entire thing on the cannibal island – though entertaining – does nothing for the plot. All the same, it's entertaining, and I wouldn't take it out. - The entire crew of "The Black Pearl" is back, with the one exception of Anamaria. Her character is just – gone. She's never mentioned, so it leaves me wanting to know what happened.

And you've probably heard it by now, but I'll repeat it: Dead Man's Chest doesn't really end. It is the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers. Bah humbug. There's the huge shocker, and then the credits roll. So your sitting there, thinking, "What? It's over? No way. They can't do this! No! I want to see it now!" But alas, we will have to wait until Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End opens. Still… the more I think about it, the happier I am about it. It's a ploy to get you to see the third movie, but who cares! It works, while still rocking the house. 10/10

Few films have ever succeeded in breaking my heart; and Crash is one of them. This film is brilliant and it breaks your heart to watch it. I haven't seen any of the other nominees for the 2006 Best Picture Oscar so I have no idea how it compares, but Crash is indeed wonderful.

The entire cast does an amazing job. Their performances (as individuals and as a whole) are stunning and inspired. There is not a single performance that I was able to find a problem with, and that surprised me. For one, it is a colossal ensemble piece, you would expect one of them to back down at least once. But they never do. In fact, some of the actors have redeemed themselves in my eyes. Most particularly, Ryan Phillipe as Henderson. He doesn't mumble, and his character isn't the sort of pathetic, self assertive, slime ball that I'm used to seeing him as. All the performances are excellent, but there are a few in particular that I would like to point out: Matt Dillon as Officer John Ryan. He plays the most disgusting, racist, bigot that ever existed. His anger (at himself, at his father, for his father) wells up inside until he sees no way to relieve it other than to be racist. He molests a black woman without a second thought. And then, he tries to do the right thing, only to find that his past actions have an affect on people, so much that they are unable to forgive him for some things. Another performance is Don Cheadle as Graham Waters. A black detective from the inner city who has risen to a level far above his beginnings. As much as he hates his past, he is still connected to it, as he takes care of his druggie mother, and shields her from what her youngest son has become. Sandra Bullock as Jean Cabot. Where's Miss Conjeniality now? She plays an afraid, lonely, and prejudiced wife, who feels as if she's always angry, but without a reason. I have a whole new respect for her acting abilities. My final favorite performance goes to Michael Pena as Daniel. An honest, law abiding man trying to make a life for his young daughter, away from the violence that surrounds their life. His role as a caring father is perfect, and it breaks my heart.

My hat goes off to Paul Haggis. I cannot even imagine making this movie. The camera angles are wonderful, but I really loved the transitions. Weird, I know, but I do love them. They are not abrupt, there are no dissolves, or old school transitions. They are all smooth, flowing from one scene to the next flawlessly. They help to keep the film moving at a quick pace. The script is astounding as well, so my hat goes off to Robert "Bobby" Moresco as well as Haggis. I cannot even fathom writing this screenplay. The entire premise is so complex, that I just have to give it a standing ovation. The dialog flows and every single one of the characters are created perfectly. They come alive for us on screen. They *are* alive for us. There are so many twists and turns of the plot (just as with real life), that you are sucked in. I love, even though it kills me, the plot twist that happens to Henderson. That kills me. The young, white cop, fighting for equality, who does the one thing he hates. It's one of the truest moments I have ever seen on film.

And that brings me to the reason that I am unable to give Crash a perfect 10. As superb as it is, the acting, the direction, the writing, it is flawed in too many ways - too many for me just to over look. Crash fails to wrap up many of the loose ends that its multiple story lines are bound to have. And it's a shame too. I want to know how Henderson handles what he did. I want to know what was really going on between Rick and Karen and how he breaks that to Jean, or if he just lets it slide. But all in all, Crash is a gem. I loved it, and I give it an extremely high 9/10.

I have to give Robert Altman a standing ovation. Gosford Park is spectacular. It's an amazingly complex whodunit that will leave you guessing until the very, very end.

The entire cast is amazing. No one ever drops character and each character serves a purpose - which is no small feat with such a colossal ensemble. The cinematography is jaw dropping. You will notice that the camera never stops moving, which helps to keep the movie going at such a quick pace. I cannot even imagine writing the script for this movie, it is a feat well worth the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.

In my past experiences with whodunits, I've noticed two types. In the first type, the murderer is obvious and the motives are even more obvious. In the second type, the murderer is not obvious because we aren't given enough clues or something like it. But Gosford Park does the fabulous job of falling into neither category. In Gosford Park, we are given every clue, every motive, and it is still not until the end that we figure out what all those clues come together to mean.

Gosford Park is a truly excellent film and unlike any that I have ever seen. No matter how many times you watch it, you will pick something new up each time. 10/10

What can I say about King Arthur? It's an attempt to conform a well loved myth to a historical account. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. As someone who's grown up loving the stories of King Arthur and his knights, it's weird to have it "historicallized". AKA: the magic was taken away. It's a mediocre film -- so I'll give you the pros and cons right here:

PROS: The battle sequences are indeed beautiful. There are some absolutely stunning shots of the Saxon army marching over the ice. I love the smoky affects used in the final battle as well. They are rather drawn out (it takes a LOT to bring the main characters down, they just keep going, and going and going, which eventually becomes something of an annoyance). Keira Knightley -- she does a good job, despite her small and rather weird role. Mads Mikkelson as Tristan, he's the only knight I really wanted to survive. The cinematography is interesting to say the least. There are pretty much 3 colors in the entire movie: green, blue and red.

CONS: The script is crap. No buts about it, it sucks. So I guess that there is only so much that the actors could do with their characters. I've read reviews that say Clive Owen is uninspired as King Arthur. And I have to agree. But I'm not sure it's his fault, the character is horribly written. Instead of being a fiery, heroic knight, Arhtur's a wimpy little bible-thumping Catholic. Clive borders on brilliance a couple of times, but he never puts enough fire into the rather drab Arthur. I totally did not understand any of the relationships involving Lancelot. Did he and Guinevere have a little spark, or not? And if Lancelot "knows Arthur best" and is his truest friend, than why do they never get along?

King Arthur is nothing spectacular. In fact, it's right forgettable. To Clive and Keira, why did you pick this movie?! You both have so much potential and both of you should learn to pick your scripts better. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this. But it's okay. It won't blow your socks off, but it's fine -- mediocre. 5/10

I was super surprised at just how much I enjoyed Serenity. And I'm even more surprised that I enjoyed it the next time I watched it, and the next time, etc. It's really, very good! Loved it from start to finish, and it actually gets better (and faster paced) each time I watch it. I've been around the classic sci-fi movies since forever. Star Trek and Star Wars buff, right here. And now I'm a big Serenity/Firefly Buff too. I really wish that I'd known about "Firefly" when it was on Fox because you bet that I'd have watched it.

Okay, down to this movie. Is it flawed? Of course -- it's a sci-fi movie. But it's a good flawed! Serenity is a ride that you get onto when the movie begins and that you get off of when the ending credits roll. You want to know what's going to happen! A couple of reviews have said that you won't get it if you didn't watch "Firefly", but I didn't have that problem at all. If you think about it, everything makes sense, even if this is your first introduction to the story. Serenity does a great job of not being confusing to those of us who are just meeting Captain Mal and crew; but still adding tons of "inside" jokes and continuances for those who loved "Firefly". The acting was good, the actors seemed to actually a) enjoy their characters (*gasp!*) b) enjoy working together (*double gasp!*). Everyone fit together really well. The writing was good (a tiny bit cheesy, but that's only to be expected), with no plot holes that I noticed. It even managed to get pretty deep with a well put message/moral. I know what your thinking, "A message in a sci-fi movie? Is she crazy?" but hey, it's there.

I know that not everyone is going to like Serenity. And that's fine. It's not for everyone. If your not a sci-fi/fantasy/action/adventure sort of person, you won't like it. And you won't like it if your offended by "gratuitous violence". But for those of us who enjoy/don't mind these things -- Serenity rocks. Definitely a solid 9/10.

What can I say about Tristan + Isolde? The bad outweigh the good.

The cinematography is gorgeous - you can't argue about that. I loved the shots of the clouds passing over the Irish hills. They were stunningly beautiful. And -- that's it.

This film lacked so much of the passion that I think this story deserved. The relationship between James Franco (Tristan) and Sophia Myles (Isolde) was lacking in the passion that is the supposed foundation for their relationship. It seemed very juvenile, when it was supposed to be the sort of love that is mature and ageless. I so didn't buy their love. The battle sequences could have been amazing. But they passed by too quickly. I never got into them. There were far too many different camera angles. I didn't enjoy them. This movie was supposed to be a heart-wrenching tear jerker - which it wasn't. I felt like I was obligated to cry - if that's possible.

This movie was mediocre - so not worth the wait.

Rumor Has It... that this movie is mediocre. It wasn't half as entertaining as I thought it would be and was only saved by the totally amusing performance by Shirley MacLaine.

Rumour Has It has a *great* premise. The real Robinsons! Ingeneous! But poorly executed. I'm not really sure how it could have been done better, but I know that it could. For one, I didn't want Beau Burroughs to have any real feelings for Sarah. Once again, Kevin Costner ruined a perfectly good character for me. Shirley MacLaine was the one golden spot in the entire movie and she's a good enough reason to see it. I couldn't stop laughing at everything she did and said. She even made everyone around her do a better job in each scene (yes, even Kevin Costner).

So Rumor Has It isn't all that great. I laughed the 1st time and the second time I wondered what was ever so funny. It's definitely geared toward teenage girls so I'd recommend watching it with a pack of them, I'm sure they'll find something to laugh about. 4.5/10

Titanic is indeed an excellent movie, and one that everyone should probably see at some point or another. It is truly a gem among films. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, easily some of the best that I have ever seen. The performances from both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are some of the truest and most heartfelt ever. Their chemistry is perfect, totally and utterly believable. James Cameron does an awesome job directing. The suspense remains the entire time, even though you know how it's going to turn out. My only problem with Titanic is the length. Seriously, a good half hour - 45 minutes could have been cut from the end. Do we really need to see all of those people drown? Yes and no. No, because 3 hours and 14 minute is way to long, even for an epic movie. Yes, because it makes the entire thing more believable and all the more heart/gut wrenching. Titanic is an amazing movie, but not one that you can see a ton of times. The 1st time it's amazing, the 2nd time it's okay, the 3rd time you end up checking your watch ever 5 minutes waiting for it to be over. A solid 10/10.

I loved The Mummy so, of course, I had to see The Mummy Returns as well. At first, I was wary of seeing it. The majority of movie sequels crash and burn hopelessly, ruining the originals forever. Thankfully, The Mummy Returns returns doesn't do that! This is at least as good as it's predecessor. A few alarm bells went off in my head when I first started watching this movie, but none of them were necessary. When I first saw that Evie and Rick had a kid (Alex), I was like, "Oh crap. This is going to suck." But it didn't! Freddie Boath actually does a really good job playing Alex. He wasn't annoying and he never got in the way of the action. The part was well written and he executed it well.

Props to Stephen Sommers for bringing back his entire leading cast. The Mummy Returns wouldn't have been half as good if any of the characters had been recast. The ever spectacular Rachel Weisz once again does a wonderful job playing Evie. The same for Brendan Frasier. When I first saw The Mummy, I was really worried about having Frasier in an action/adventure role. Face it, the guy isn't exactly the most serious actor. But he rocks, no one else could have played Rick like he can. Oded Fehr is wonderful as Ardeth Bay. I'm really glad that they decided not to kill off his character at the end of The Mummy. But for me, John Hannah once again stole the show. I love him as Jonathan! In every scene he's in, I can't take my eyes off of him. He's incredibly entertaining - just like an actor should be.

Stephen Sommers is a great director. Granted, his films are exactly going to win the Oscar for Best Picture, but the visual effects really are stunning. His movies garb me and always entertain me, regardless.

So the moral of the story is, RENT THE MUMMY RETURNS! It's a fabulous ride and you won't regret it. A very solid 9/10.

"Corpse Bride" wasn't nearly as good as I expected it to be. I am usually a big fan of Tim Burton's work (and Danny Elfman's music) but "Corpse Bride" just didn't do it for me.

Maybe it's that I didn't realize it was a musical, but the music caught me completely off guard. I had not expected that at all. The score was nice, but the songs were rather painful to listen to with less than stellar singers and extremely repetitive lyrics. In short, I have no plans to rush to the store and purchase the soundtrack.

I've never seen "The Nightmare Before Christmas" so I have no clue what it's like but I really, really hated the animation. It was awkward and took away from the plot (and not in a good way). I suppose that it was all done on purpose but still... It's full of the quirkiness that defines Tim Burton's work. Which can be a good thing depending on whether or not you enjoy that quirkiness. But I did really like how the Corpse Bride turned out. Very pretty. (If you can say that about a corpse...) =P For the first 20 minutes or so of the movie were really painful for me. The first song almost made me turn it off and the distracting animations were beginning to give me a headache. But I stuck with it long enough for the plot to begin (which in my opinion, took to long). The only reason that I kept watching was because I really couldn't predict the ending. Who would Victor choose? The Corpse Bride or Victoria? Victoria is his love, but he is also attracted to the Corpse Bride, making her the one he *should* marry according to Hollywood standards. (No I did not just give the ending away) in case you were wondering. The "twist" at the end concerning the Corpse Bride's murder didn't surprise me at all - I saw it coming from a mile away.

"Corpse Bride" wasn't all that bad - but it definitely wasn't as good as I thought it would. Tim Burton really let me down on this one. "Corpse Bride" earns itself a 5/10.

I have never been a fan of Tolkein's works. Whenever I've tried to read them, I've become bored and have stopped bothering. It's taken me a while to get around to watching The Lord of the Rings, but I am very glad that I have now seen it. In fact, it actually made me read the books and I prefer the movies to the books.

One of the things that I enjoyed so much about this movie is the absolutely *stunning* cinematography. Filming in New Zealand was a brilliant move and I am so glad that this was filmed "on location" instead of in the studio. I realize that a good deal of this movie is CGI, but it flows beautifully and there aren't any particular moments where you say, "AHA! Green screen! Right there!"

I truly enjoyed the performances given by the lead actors. Especially Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn. His performance is authentic and he obviously strove to not only play, but *become* his character. Orlando Bloom is wonderful as Legolas and this is easily one of my favorite performances from him. Although in all technicality Legolas is a supporting character, he is an individual supporting character. In the fellowship, there are no other elves for him to be supporting, so in that aspect he is a very individual character, even if he is not the lead. Elijah Wood is good as well -- he does a wonderful job of capturing the simplicity of Frodo and his depressed emotional state. And more credit to Mortensen as well as Liv Tyler with their emotion charged love scenes. A rare thing in Hollywood, these scenes are more sensual then sexual -- a welcome relief from the modern Hollywood blockbuster that just screams sex.

Many people aren't particularly wowed by Peter Jackson's directing ability. But I have to say that I think he did a wonderful job. Despite the 178 minutes running time, the movie never drags once. Jackson did a good job of getting as much as he possibly could out of his actors and that is easily the film's biggest asset. This is an amazing film and everyone should see it.

I enjoyed "Win a Date with Tad Hamilton". It's a brainless, cutesy little romantic comedy -- but that's okay since it doesn't try to be anything deep or uber meaningful. Topher Grace does a good job playing the sort of nerdy-uber romantic-always crushing on cheerleaders but never having one as a girlfriend guy. It seems to be a really natural performance, possible too natural? ;) Just kidding. But honestly, he does as good of a job as any guy can do in a movie that is totally geared towards the female population. Needless to say, the moral of this story is pretty obvious and it's one we've seen at least a gazillion times before. But I liked it and it's perfect if you're looking for something that requires no brain power at all.

"Sahara" is an enjoyable movie. Granted, it definitely won't turn into a surprise Golden Globe/SAG/Oscar winner, or even a nominee. It's only OKAY, but it doesn't really try to be anything better than that.

The pyrotechnics (though often used) are nothing spectacular and in the beginning, they're flat out cheesy. But as the movie progresses, so does the quality of the effects; climaxing in the old west-meets-James Bond showdown at the end.

There's nothing excessively original about "Sahara" and there are many moments when you think to yourself, "My God that looks really familiar!" Then later on you realize, "Oh yeah! That was in James Bond/'Pirates of the Caribbean'/'National Treasure'!" And there are lots of parts of the plot that appear to be direct take offs of "Pirates of the Caribbean". The most noticeable being the music which is very "Pirates-esq", and the gold coin Dirk keeps obsessively tossing around for no apparent reason. (And for those who watch this on DVD, the main menu is a direct take off of the main menu from "Pirates of the Caribbean" - minus the pirates obviously) That's not to say that there aren't the original and really entertaining pieces of "Sahara". The dialog is quick, fairly original, witty and sufficiently amusing. It keeps you engaged and gives you a few chuckles, but nothing really makes you fall out of your seat laughing. The plot is good, but lacks in some, intangible ways that make it slow, but not so slow that you feel like getting up and leaving in the middle. It's fairly predictable but still contains a decent amount of surprising moments. The two plots of the epidemic and Dirk's obsession mesh pretty well, and although it's obvious that there will be some sort of romance between Eva and Dirk, it isn't built up very well.

"Sahara" is good and pretty decent fun if you want to watch a light movie that tries to be deep. I give it a 5.5/10.

There are people in the world who scorn old black-and-white movies as boring and uninteresting. I'm not one of them. I am also a romantic, which I think is a must if you are going to see this movie.

"Roman Holiday" tells the story of Princess Ann, a young princess who is utterly bored with her life as royalty and so one night in Rome, she sneaks away from the embassy - only to fall asleep on the streets of Rome. She is found by an American journalist named Joe Bradley, who takes her home with him (remember, this is an old movie so don't expect any sex). He recognizes her as the princess, but goes along with her when she says that her name is Anya. "Roman Holiday" shows the one day that they spend together, and the memories that it will give them.

When I saw "Roman Holiday" for the first time, I was blown away. It is made simply, and that is what makes it so perfectly beautiful. The story appears to be simple, but when you watch the movie you realize just how complex it is and you feel yourself being drawn into the world that these two characters live in. Since it is an old black-and-white film, you aren't distracted by all the colors and special affects. Instead, you just focus in on the emotions and on the two characters.

Audrey Hepburn (in her debut role), truly earned her Oscar for Best Actress. She (her character) grows so much during the movie and you really feel like you know her. Gregory Peck is amazing. His facial expressions are perfect and well beyond anything that most modern day actors could achieve. He holds just the right amount of yearning, pain and total bliss in just one look so that you are immediately captivated. Togetehr, Hepburn and Peck have what I consider to be the best on screen chemistry of all time. I loved it.

The ending is perfect (I won't tell you what it is though). I can guarantee you will feel a tear trickle down your face towards the end and that you will be utterly outraged when the end occurs. This is a movie for all hopeless romantics and for those who just want a good, sweet tear-jerking movie. A perfect movie for a girls-night out.

This is the movie that started it all for me (my Monty Python obsession anyway). It's full of the humor that I love best. It's 25% crude, 25% "British", 25% satirical, 25% slapstick and 100% Monty Python. The tag line says it all: "Makes Ben Hur look like an epic." "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is Monty Python's classic humor at its best and definitely most amusing. How can you not laugh at the truly witty and ingenious humor and at the hilarious characters? Many people who watch this are promptly struck with severe cases of what I like to call "Monty Pythonitis", an extremely contagious disease where the person enjoying "Monty Pythonitis" (yes, enjoying) finds themselves waking up in the middle of the night yelling "NI! NI! NI!"; laughing uncontrollably at words like "shrubbery" and "swallow" and then running off and reciting most of the movie to their extremely bored friends. Yes, this movie is that good.

Granted, not everyone will enjoy this movie. I've watched a ton of times with friends and while I'm laughing at the Knight's Who Say NI, they're like, "What's so funny about this again?" But for those of us who absolutely enjoy the sort of twisted, satirical, slapstick, British humor that is Monty Python, this is a MUST. A hilarious 10/10.

The brand-new "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is nothing like the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder. If you're a fan of the 1971 version, you will either be awe inspired and hate Johnny Depp for doing better than Gene Wilder, or you will be horrified by the fact that you could like the 1971 version when the new one is so much better. (I don't mean to be judgmental, but this is most likely how you will feel about it) The first sign that this would be a good movie came simply from the name: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Ahhhhhhh. What a relief to those of us who love the book and love it's name. The version from 1971 is known as "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" - this should give you a few hints as to what it's like.

Now that I am done complaining about the first version of Roald Dahl's classic film, I can go on to praise the new one. First off, major props to Tim Burton for creating such a mesmerizing and lingering yet entertaining film. This movie has so many layers and therefore, such a broad audience. If you want something light and carefree, go ahead and see "Charlie". You can just scrape the surface and enjoy the comedic side of the film. But if you want something a bit deeper (but not overly dark), see it as well and dive on in to the mind of Willy Wonka - candy maker extraordinaire. The frequent flashbacks to Wonka's painful childhood are not featured in Roald Dahl's story, but they are very good all the same. Without them, this movie would be a mere shadow of what it is context wise.

Enter the astounding character created by Johnny Depp. Can you say Oscar nomination? He is both wonderfully funny and painfully sad, all in a moment's glimpse. You find yourself loving him and then hating him for being so utterly blind as to what is right inside of him. Nice job to Freddie Highmore, too. Of course, Johnny carries the movie but Freddie doesn't do so bad himself.

No matter who you are or what you want from a movie, "Charlie and the Chocolate" factory is the movie for you. You will leave the theater knowing you saw something amazing. It is mesmerizing and beautiful and will linger with you for days to come. This is guaranteed to become a classic in its own right.

I did not go to see "Hotel Rwanda" of my own free will, but I am glad I did go, and you will be too. "Hotel Rwanda" tells the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu man living in Rwanda. Paul is married to a Tutsi woman named Tatiana and they have two children. When the president of Rwanda's plane is shot down, Hutu extremists go on a rampage and kill around a million Tutsi's. "Hotel Rwanda" shows the carnage that occurred. It also shows one man's courage to stand up for what was right and to protect innocent people's lives - even by risking his own. In opening up his hotel, Paul Rusesabagina saved almost a thousand innocent Tutsi.

Anyone with a heart will feel some extremely strong emotion when they see this movie. It is not the film for everyone. But everyone should see it. It doesn't matter if you want to see it or not, you should. Don Cheadle (who was nominated for Best Actor at the 77th Academy Awards) is perfect as Paul. He portrays the emotions that the real Paul felt and he fits the role like a glove. Sophie Okonedo (who was nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the 77th Academy Awards) plays Paul's wife, Tatiana and does beautifully.

"Hotel Rwanda" makes a point of showing the carnage that occurred in the 1991 genocide in Rwanda, where the weapons of choice were machetes. But this movie isn't just about teaching people about what happened over a decade ago. It shows that genocide can happen at anytime and any place. Genocides are not limited to the Holocaust of WWII. There is even one happening right now in Dafar, Sudan. In "Hotel Rwanda", one character makes the point the we see these things on television, say how awful it is, and then go right on eating our dinner.

This is a movie everyone should see. It will be painful, but it will be good for you. It will make you think. No one should go without seeing it. It really is an important lesson for everyone in the world. And I can almost guarantee you will have tears streaming down your face. You won't regret seeing this movie.