slayer_of_the_jugga_phuk

Up is a film that focuses heavily on emotional story elements as well as epic-scale action scenes with a beautifully tropical setting. Everything you see in the trailer is pretty much present as you would expect, but the problem is that other than the masterful introductory fifteen minutes or so, nothing is there to surprise you or make you feel 'blown away'. The action scenes were fun but they somehow stole from the feel. To quote quite the unlikely source for such a phenomenal line... "It's the boring stuff I remember the most." That could not be more appropriate to describe Up, as it was the small, slower-paced scenes in the film that really made it stand out in the moments where it did feel special. When the child speaks of his father, and especially any moment referring to the old man and his beloved wife... these story elements that really focus on the characters is what won the show for me. Sadly, that is constantly broken to a degree by another scene that, despite its epic-scale in adventurous action, strangely felt unwanted when I'd rather just listen to the characters talk. That's strange for an adventure film for all ages, but I believe that was the film's problem.

Up... should not have been so heavily themed on adventure. The characters are too well developed and interesting to do that. Some adventure is mandatory and even appreciated, and I am not saying I didn't enjoy the action we got. The problem is, the balance was off, and it simply left me over-exhausted from high-flying venturing and starved for more character development.

Ultimately, while I greatly enjoyed Up, it simply did not live up to such gems as Ratatouille, Wall-E, and The Incredibles.

I went into this film with no expectations poor or positive. I am, however, a person who does not believe Sally Field deserves her acclaim and finds her to be a good deal overrated. Is she a bad actress? Over the top, maybe, but I would not use the term 'bad'. At least not until I saw this.

The film is about a woman who calls her teenage daughter from a traffic jam and, as they are talking, she hears her daughter being attacked. The girl is raped and killed. This already brings me to the first issue with the film, as well as with Sally Field's acting. For starters, there may have been an issue with hanging up the phone due to the daughter not hitting 'end' back then, I am not up to date on how cell phones worked in the mid-90's. However, why did she never attempt to hang up and call 911 on the phone in her hand? Comfort does not mean as much as life, and every second counts.

There is also the fact that, other than two brief scenes, I never once felt like Sally's character cared a thing for her daughter. She never acts sad or distraught over her daughter's death, and only comes off as either indifferent or offended, as if someone had stolen property from her and given her a reason to be defensive over herself. I understand denial and hysterics, but at a certain point the family members of victims of such crimes do end up breaking down and, in nearly every case, lose track of life and shut down partially. There is even a moment when a woman tells Sally she needs to stay strong for her youngest daughter, despite the fact that she is the least upset person at the entire memorial. She seems to use her daughter's death as an excuse to be illogical, hysterical, and hateful but never once gave me a reason to feel bad for her, when I should normally be able to without much expression at all.

The film's villain is also abysmal. He behaves like an overly cartoon-like fiend who lives for no reason other than to do mischief (it is bad when I can use this word accurately about a rapist/murderer in a serious drama). I was honestly waiting for him to get hold of Sally Field and tie her to the railroad tracks by the third time he laughed deviously and did another random, senseless act of naughtiness. The man rapes and kills two people for certain, as well as pours hot coffee on a dog and urinates through a woman's fence, and somehow managed to not only make none of this seem overly malicious or cruel, but almost like a child trying to get attention.

Every character is unbelievable and ridiculous, except for perhaps the two victims who are seen so briefly each. The police officer defies logic at every turn and when he actually does decide to do something, it is not only at the wrong time but in a way that in most cases he would have been fired for his actions. He assaults a man who has been legally dismissed of all charges, simply on suspicion. This includes holding a gun to his head. Plenty of witnesses saw and heard the assault, and one word from any of them and he would be turning in his badge and completely useless to anyone. This may have been his true goal, though, as without such a useless officer on the force they may actually get something done. Now just to deal with the idiots handling the evidence.

The finale of the film is absurd, not due to the plot but simply because of how it is delivered. At one point Sally Field has the killer at gunpoint, easily six feet away minimum, and has plenty of opportunity and logical reason, as well as every intent, to shoot and kill him. This was her plan, to kill the man while under legal conditions. Instead, she waits around for literally no reason and somehow allows him to ram his entire body into her before she can do so much as to pull the trigger once. She is then knocked down the stairs and lands on her back at the bottom, and though the gun is lying only a few inches away from her in plain sight to both of them, this for some reason did not seem threatening to the killer who idly strolls down the stairs taunting her. No shock to anyone, she grabs the gun and fires repeatedly into his torso, not missing a single time. Strangely, he seems bewildered by these events and does not understand how the woman lying only a few inches away from a loaded gun shot him while he taunted her and slowly moved in for the kill.

I will not even discuss the "Vigilante Group", that is simply something you will have to see yourself, or be glad you are not aware of.

Plain and simple, this film is entirely unbelievable, every attempt at inducing any sort of emotion is a miserable failure, and it will make you wish you had two hours of your life back. How so many people seemed to have liked this disturbs me.

I would recommend this to only an enemy.

Okay so don't mistake generic for everyday Hollywood action, it certainly isn't that. When I say generic I mean for the genre, there's nothing new here or really anything all too interesting.

The film is about two younger gentlemen, ranging near the age of twenty each, who dress in a way that is far less than threatening. All white, as though prepared to play golf, nobody you would really think much of. They also seem a bit whimpy and almost limp in the wrist and so the typical American family is going to think very little of them. Well, it starts with one of them toying with a woman in her vacation home about desiring to borrow four eggs for undisclosed reasons. He breaks them on 'accident' and asks for more. These are then broken by a dog, to which he claims to fear, and through a series of somewhat amusing yet overly droll moments the woman becomes infuriated and demands they leave, even getting her husband involved in the scenario.

Well, after a while the two young men decide to take the family, a wife, father, and a son, hostage and start to toy with their heads in various sadistic games of psychological torture, at least that's the impression I got that they were attempting. The family is ultimately butchered one at a time, the wife being given the most physically generous death by being drowned while given the most extreme mental disturbances of losing the man she loves and her son. The son gets the most brutal of it, being shot directly in the face (off screen, tasteful) by a shotgun for attempting to escape. The husband is tormented a good deal by a knife and eventually put out of his misery by a shotgun, again off screen.

Overall there is nothing here that you haven't likely seen somewhere else. The psychotic young men are bland and uninteresting, but I will admit they give a fair amount of pleasure in their acting performance of truly seeming mentally ill. They behave with very child-like minds and banter between one another, making up various lies and just playing around. Neither one of them seems particularly bright although certainly not uneducated, something like well-taught spoiled rich kids who have limited expansion to begin with and only a decent enough memory.

The way the film is shot is a bit drab and bizarre, it seemed like they were attempting to appear as though a home movie was filmed by a professional camera on a tripod. Imperfect shots, many standing positions, many events happening off screen suddenly while only some are caught on film. It was filmed well overall, and I was glad that they didn't attempt something overly artsy or abstract.

But like I said, there's nothing here you're going to see that's new or really that interesting, the premise is simply two young men hold a family hostage and kill them one at a time while playing mind torture the whole time. If you like films like this, I would strongly recommend "The Strangers", a film released in the same year, instead. While it is still somewhat generic, it has much better cinematography and is masterful at the suspenseful atmosphere, truly an over looked gem. It perhaps would have been better without Liv Tyler, but that's nothing I can fairly complain about, the film needed at least one well known star in order to be recognized even as much as it was.

As for Funny Games... if you have time on your hands and feel like watching a little generic sadism, it's certainly worth catching on Starz or HBO, but I wouldn't recommend renting or buying it. I enjoyed it to a degree, but I do not see myself rewatching it at any point in my life.

Was there a single positive to this film? Critics who knew nothing of video games could spot the gaming errors made. No damage taken with damage clearly visible towards the beginning being a primary example.

And I may have missed something, but wasn't Super Mario Bros. 3 suppose to be a game that had never played before? Well if that IS the case, and I did not miss anything... how did Fred Savage's character, and even the girl, know so much about the game already? We're talking things that some people don't know about by their second or third play-through.

Beyond the factual and gaming errors there is the general low quality of the film itself. Nothing here is honestly very memorable. The kid wasn't even that good at playing video games in the footage they showed. A lot of kids I knew way back in those days were significantly more experienced. On top of all this the acting and storyline are just mediocre at their strongest points. The characters are bland and completely uninteresting, the 'Wizard' (the youngest child) is a very silent, completely dry child cliché of a little kid who almost never talks because of a trauma. It isn't that this is unrealistic, it's the fact that it had to be thrown into the movie to actually even begin to form a plot that would exceed even 30 minutes.

Honestly, the only value that is to be found here is that of a nostalgic nature. If you grew up with this movie you're going to like it whether it was good or not. It was about kids playing video games, and at the time you saw it you likely had an obsession with the NES as well. But unless you loved it as a kid there just isn't anything that's going to keep you interested, and very little that will prevent you from turning it off.

No sir, I didn't like it.

Now for a long time I had heard well of the film "Sling Blade", particularly for the fact that I had not met even a single person who has seen it that disliked it. On top of this fact Billy Bob Thornton is one of my most favored actors, one of those select few who I have never seen play a role I did not like even if I did not care for the film itself.

This all being known I could not pass up the open opportunity to see the film on HBO OD, as it would cost me nothing but two hours of my time even if I was not all too fond of the movie.

The acting is the up-point of the film, being exceptional even by the standards of Thornton and never really lacking. However, this is all based upon Hollywood perspective, as I am yet to see even a single film where anyone acts like a real person to even a mild degree. For these standards, the film's performances are exceptional.

You really buy into it being a small southern town, as well as the leading character Karl having a long ago history there. Many characters know of him or at least his actions that got him placed into the institution all those years ago, but none of them truly know him as he was very young and few of them know it was he personally who committed such acts. The leading character, while being mentally challenged and a bit difficult to understand at times, is quite likable in spite of his past and you really learn to care for him, knowing that not a single action of his life had true malice behind it as much as simple ignorance.

The storyline is interesting, be it a tad unoriginal and simplistic, but perhaps this is not a bad thing at all. The flow is quite smooth, if a little slow at times. The pace is fairly enjoyable, though, constructed and progressed well. It is a fine example of character study, however the supporting characters are a bit shallow and forgotten under the heavy focus of Karl himself.

The antagonist is quite convincing and well acted, but the problem there is the lack of a true depth to him. You see several negative acts committed by him, but none that truly warrant him as a bad person but much closer to simply an every day aggressive drunk. He is nothing special or interesting, and while this is the point to his character the movie does not tell you enough about him on an emotional and mental level to really learn to dislike him fairly, it nearly feels forced.

Overall, the film is quite good and definitely worth the time you will spend on it. It is a little flat and slow at times, as well as quite predictable, but it has heart and talent behind it. Billy Bob is at his best, and if you are a fan of his you should not miss this film. However, sadly that seems to be the strongest audience that will positively receive it. While the average movie-goer is certain to approve, I somewhat doubt that anyone who dislikes Billy Bob specifically will find anything redeeming enough to make the film stand out.

I give this film a seven out of ten, for being well acted and designed, but falling a bit flat in substance and originality.

Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.

The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself "Sports Movie". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.

If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.

The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.

A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says "Fox Atomic". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.

I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.

You might as well watch Zohan.

Saw I: An en genius, well conceived film with a phenomenal twist, brilliant traps, wonderful camera-work, a good script, and amazingly done for most of the scenes being taken from the initial take (literally, very few re-shoots) Saw II: A well developed film that follows up strong on the original. It's concept and storyline were well enough designed to appropriately be a sequel, but it was different and original enough to prevent itself from being boring. It was well done, very similar to the first in camera-style, dialog, and creation, and seemed to use over twice the budget it had effectively. They did this film in less time than the first, and so had even less time for re-takes, so it turned out pretty decent. It also answers a few questions from the first.

Saw III: This is where the series... was a bit different. This film, as many who have seen it will know, is based on the fact that this time around it is a different 'mastermind' behind the Jigsaw's traps. The new antagonist (Amanda) failed to see how the Jigsaw's plan and genius flowed and felt as though the goal was to simply punish and torment, therefore made the traps impossible to escape. This was a good concept for the film and lead up to a well thought out, more than decent ending, but it took away the entire idea of the traps. The cool thing about Saw I and II, beyond the story and twists, is to see how drastic the circumstances must be to escape and to see if the victims truly valued their lives enough to go through it. Being an impossible escape made this factor suffer their fate.

Saw IV: This film took an entirely new approach. Not only was the camera-style, music score, and lighting all entirely different, but the storyline was now attempting to go for a more complex shape. This installment shows you the beyond of Jigsaw's death, and proves that even in death his game continues. The first portion of the film is very shotty and difficult to follow. It takes many alternate paths and branches into several, at the time, seemingly irrelevant side-stories which all have SOME sort of impact on the climax, but overall their complexity proved unnecessary and made the main story difficult to focus on. About an hour into the film is when you first witness the classic genius of the Saw franchise. A trap, featuring two closely 'tied' victims, or pinned rather, proved that the classic fashion of the Jigsaw had not faded, and continued to have the same intent as always. Beyond this point the side stories begin to fade, or merge, so that the main theme is more easily followed. It begins to answer a few questions you may have been confused about and ties up a lot of loose ends. It begins to reveal a great deal about Jigsaw's past as well as why he does what he does and what inspires him. It shows more of the old, healthier (or at least stronger) Jigsaw when he was beginning his work, and you witness a brilliant trap from his history that certainly did not disappoint (to those who've seen Saw IV... think knives).

The ending is also a very classic feel that pays homage to the original title in the series. For the last ten minutes it almost feels as though you've been taken back to Saw's best of times and does not climax with disappointment. It makes the difficult to follow, sloppy, loosely timed hour from the beginning of Saw 4 and makes it worth it.

If you're like me, you'll like it, but you may want to see it again now that it's finished to catch any parts you forgot (due to confusion) from the first half and make more sense of them.

Overall, it was a bit sloppy, but for the budget, the time it was developed in, and the mere fact it was a FOURTH installment, it was pretty good.

Does anyone agree that how overly aggressive both main characters in this film were is a bit over the top? There is no reason why he would be this vicious. The majority of the Nazi military, even those in charge of the most horrid of acts, were not that sadistic mentally. Many Nazis happened to be animal lovers and not even biggots. Most of them were in the military due to desperation to serve a leader who promised salvation, or a simple respect for their country. Some were also drafted into War, without any alternative. Granted this man was specifically suppose to be fairly sadistic in nature... it seems unfair to take something so easily targeted as the Aryan Race and make them seem like such heartless monsters.

Also, the kid... he was borderline insane and possibly more inwardly sadistic than the old man. He had no reason to be so messed up in the head. He may have been a Nazi Idolizing Adolescent, but when you get right down to it... there's a lot of those. They're usually cruel or torturous to small animals for the sake of being malicious, as well as selfish, NOT naturally evil. They do it to rebel and seem cruel. This kid in this movie was just... sick. He didn't do it to be cruel, he did it because he WAS cruel. Because he wanted to see things suffer and die.

I'm not saying it made the story bad or anything, it didn't. I understand it being a writer myself. It's a good plot device for a Fictional Thriller like this, but they just went too far to get their point across. It lacked subtlety, and just threw the maliciousness in your face. The scene with the cat wasn't necessary. It was a separate scene associated in no way with the storyline that absolutely no sane person would have missed if it was cut from the final film. It didn't make me think Ian's character was more evil, I knew he was. It simply made me think the Writer and Director had problems and wanted to see an animal harmed. Honestly, would it have detracted from this film in any way to take that scene out? And it isn't just that. Immediately after (literally the next scene) is the scene where the boy kills the bird. Why? I understand it's to show that the two are more similar than they think, but I'd like to think everyone knew that to begin with.

This movie could have been so much better with just a few changes to it. That's my problem with Stephen King, he doesn't use a lot of psychological effect in his stories, he just comes up with the most dark, macabre thought semi-related to the story he can, makes the whole flow of the story seem calm and relaxed, then suddenly springs it on you for Shock Value.

Sadly, the average Horror/Suspense reader is limited in mental capacity and doesn't understand true writing so anything more advanced and artful may either fly right over their head or possibly destroy their mind if they try to grasp it.

Tell ya what. If you like Stephen King because of his shock value, stick with him. If you see my point and want more, look up an Author known as "John Saul". He's about fifty times more talented and a hundred times more entertaining. Poe might be too advanced for the average person due to his style, but John Saul is a definite, superior alternative to King.

Let me put this on the table. No matter what it is, you will have lovers and haters, I hope you all knew that. That having been said... I loved this movie. I think it was the best of the three without a doubt.

I think that it had its flaws, as everything does, but the good was plenty to overwhelm the bad.

It had THREE villains. Yes, THREE. And despite what some people think, NONE of them were just kept for a brief moment. They were all big conflicts throughout the whole story, along with a fourth life issue with Mary-Jane and a fifth with Peter Parker against himself. Somehow... they made it work.

I was scared with so many issues and conflicts that the plot would seem rushed and become harmed in the process, but it all worked together perfectly.

Sandman worked perfectly in this, which I didn't expect because the concept of Sandman use to be a little silly to me. Hob-Goblin was one of the best parts of the film, mostly due to the fight-scenes. He was just... better than Green Goblin. And as for Venom (Yes, Venom, he IS in this and for a good length of time)... they could have done better, mostly with the image, but the personality was down well. He didn't have the long, dangling tongue, he wasn't bulky (Black Spider-man on Steroids like in the comic), and Eddie Brock's voice kinda downgraded him... but I think they intended on that. Had they given him as much as they could have... he'd of simply overwhelmed Sandman and Harry... you'd have forgotten them and been solely focused on him, when in this he's NOT THE MAIN VILLAIN! He's, if anything, the last conflict. It's Black Spidey who caused an issue. Eddie Brock was a side-conflict. The main plot was... Harry's revenge... and Mary-Jane's jealousy. All of Peter's personal issues that clashed inside him to allow the Symbiote to possess him and unleash his inner hatred. Sandman was the secondary due to being the trigger that sets Peter's evil off. Once Peter finds out the secret about his Uncle and Flint... that's when he snapped.

The Venom suit and Eddie... were just added trouble. He couldn't be left out, though. Don't fear that they threw him in for Fan-Appeal. He had to be in it. Eddie Brock kept Spiderman steadily on edge and there'd have been no way of releasing Spidey from the black suit without him. He was the finale to the story.

The movie was full of action, very emotional, and all-around good.

BEST MOVIE OF 2007!!!

I'm not a gear-head and definitely not big into car movies. I liked the first FF, but I hated the second. As for Tokyo Drift... I loved it. I rarely rate a movie a 10, usually because I'm very judgmental about small flaws, and this one actually had some huge flaws. Something about this movie just worked, though. It was like when you really like certain things and get familiar with them BECAUSE of the flaws.

For one thing, I think that the main guy, as well as the jock in the beginning, looked nowhere near their supposed ages, because the actors really weren't, but I think that they did a good job. I think they should have changed it to college, though, because that would have just been more believable. The acting in some roles wasn't great, but those were all small acting roles, no main characters.

I loved the characters in this, especially Han. The story was also good, mostly because it was kept simple and executed very smoothly. However... there is a part roughly 70 minutes in that... I can't watch easily. Every time it gets to that point I consider rewinding it. If you've seen the movie you know what part I mean, if you haven't you'll figure it out when you see that part.

Overall this movie just worked for me. Don't watch it expecting a masterful piece of art or any deep, symbolic meanings, there really aren't any. It's just a genuinely entertaining movie, and that's why it got a 10.

I'm definitely a fan of Takashi Miike by any standard. I am yet to see a film by him I dislike, but much like "Izo" there are a few of his titles that I don't think live up to par with the rest of his work. This is one of those movies.

Ichi the Killer is a movie that, on the surface, appears to be all for fans of gore, senseless violence, and madness. And while it does have all these things and will likely appeal to those kinds of fans, it (much like his other works) is much more than that. I won't try to express the film's meaning (or at least how I took it's meaning) because all of Miike's films are something you just have to experience for yourself, if I tried to summarize it I would confuse or bore you.

The reason I think this film isn't as good as his others is because even though it was, as far as the plot, acting, and general concept, a great movie, most people who are not familiar with this sort of work won't see it as that. This movie doesn't do as good of a job at SHOWING its symbolic nature and (again, much like Izo) comes off as a movie that is bizarre for the sake of being bizarre.

Oddly enough, this happens to be one of his most linear films, and if you've seen it but not many of his others, you will wonder how it can be considered linear. Any fan of Miike's films will know what I mean, though. Anyhow, moving on.

To those of you who are familiar and/or fans of Takashi Miike, I won't even try to explain this film to you for two reasons. -1. You've probably seen this all ready. -2. You know it's just something you have to watch yourself.

To those of you who are NOT familiar with his work, and/or aren't into having to think when watching a film, this movie has a few things you might want to know before watching it.

-The film, for the first (I'd say) 30 minutes seems like your typical Japanese crime drama, granted a bit more sadistic than usual, and after that point you run into Ichi... this is where the bizarre, animesque qualities come in. Ichi sports a full-body suit that extends a blade from the foot. While this appears to be his only weapon, it is, indeed, quite effective. -If you really want to get a general idea of what this movie is... picture a Yakuza Crime-Drama combined with "the Guyver". It isn't quite as sci-fi as the ladder mentioned, but you'll get the idea once you see it.

Either way, if you are a fan of Takashi Miike, bizarre yet symbolic films, Yakuza films, gore, and/or sadism... you might as well watch it, because there's a good chance you'll like it. But do NOT watch this film expecting it to be one of Miike's better movies, or if you've heard it's AMAZING. It's really not as good as a lot of his other movies. It's very good, though.

It is a rare event when I rate a movie on the level of a 10, but if I could, I would go even higher for this film. I grew up with many films like this. Cartoon fantasies including "BFG", "The Brave Frog", "The Hobbit", and even "Wizards"... but none quite effected me on the level of this brilliant movie. While, when I was young, I did not capture the fantastic beauty of such a sweet story, I did feel something that nothing else gave me. Something... perfect. I only wish I could find it, and sadly I cannot.

The story is, as many say, somewhat themed after Shakespeare's classic "Romeo & Juliet", however, the mixture of vibrant Fantasy and animation makes this far more memorable (And I am a lover of R&J). This is, in my truest of hearts, THE movie to me. There is no better movie, and there is no film that means more.

I would recommend this to anyone with a child in their heart, and passion in their soul. It is a wonderful piece of cinematic genius, and I know that if I could only find it... I could reclaim a piece of my wondrous childhood.

If you ever find this, obtain it and hold onto it. You do not know what a beautiful Gem you possess.

When you make a film version of a game like Mortal Kombat you only have so much to work with. The storyline of MK is, all though elaborate, very limited and somewhat cliché. Don't get me wrong, aside from a few flops I love the game series, but... come on.

Anyhow, the casting for this film is rather good, aside from Sonja, who I think was a terrible choice. In fact, the actors used for Scorpion and Sub-Zero did an outstanding job.

For the budget, the film was done very expertly, and even though there are a few alterations from the game series, it is surprisingly loyal. The characters are essentially the same, aside from the costumes being a little different, and Scorpion's spear being organic and spawning from his palm, and the spear concept felt more suiting to me. Scorpion is suppose to be macabre, while Sub-Zero is meant to be silent and intimidating (which is done very well here). My only major complaints are...

1. Kano. I liked the job they did, but he was too young to be Kano. I picked this character being around 45 in the games, and this guy was a lot younger. They did make him have the perfect personality, though. Sadly, he died far too easily, and at the hands (or in a more literal sense, feet) of my least favourite character.

2. Goro. A lot of people seemed to like him in this, I think he was done poorly. Goro is a classic character from MK, more-so than any other 'boss' figure, and he's known for being infamously tyrannical and monstrous. Even in this film, for a time, he seems invincible, but at the same time he seems like a miserable lap-dog to Shang Tsung, rather than an employed champion. His voice was terrible for the fact that... I never pictured Goro talking much. Yes, I figured he'd speak sometimes, but in this he talks all of the time, usually spewing out pathetic dialogue and half-a$$ed roars. And then you have his death... Johnny Cage uses 'Ball Breaker' on him to escape him, and then runs out onto the outer ledge of the tower and tricks Goro into falling off and plummeting to his demise. Goro would beat Johnny to Hell and Back, but I guess there's just no way to include Goro in the films without killing him off, and the first MK film couldn't be much of a movie without him, I just wish they found a better way for him to die, or maybe a mystery death where people aren't sure if he actually is gone. I just hope the new film doesn't include Kintaro, because I know after seeing what this movie did with Goro, and what they did with Sheeva in the sequel, they are terrible at expressing Shokans in film form.

However, many things did impress me. The entire concept of Sub-Zero was brilliant, I could not have done him better (even though he could have been involved a LITTLE longer). The idea of Scorpion was exactly what I pictured, except they took his catch phrase a bit too far by making him say "Get Down Here!" in the same way. Shang Tsung was casted very well. A creepy, older man who looks almost harmless but turns out to be entirely brutal. That's exactly what you get from him in the games, and they did they successfully in this movie. Liu Kang was done well, maybe better than the games did him, but the actor seemed to try a little too hard to look like Bruce Lee in the fight scenes. Raiden... could really go either way, and there's nothing very notable about him. I didn't hate the actor who played him, but I think they could have found somebody better if they really tried.

Overall, MK is a good game-to-movie adaptation. It's impressive to see a loyal game film, and seeing as how this movie had almost no blood in it... and still entertained me, I couldn't think much higher of it. I would like to see it redone with some casting changes, a little more length, and an R rating due to some gore, but I enjoyed it.

8/10

All right, I have just finished watching the first showing of "The V Word" on Showtime, and having done so I have a few things to say. "The V Word" is an episode about a new-breed of vampiric legend. While they do retain many of the traditional myths, they've adapted to a new ideal.

The concept for this episode is done in the best and worst of ways. While they captured the realistic nature of the idea of vampires, seeing as how rather than any psychical change they simply tear the throat of their victim out and drink the blood. Once they've had their throat removed, or at least most of it, they go through a seemingly agonizing transformation, and forever retain that physical would that never seems to heal over. It takes the idea and makes it somewhat believable, at least until the bad part comes into play.

And here is that bad theme.

While they've been created in this way to be believable, they seem to include some of the more silly stereotypes. These vampires do not have fangs, which makes sense, however, they burst into flames under the touch of sunlight, and it is implied that they are allergic to garlic, all though I don't think they made that official or not.

It's a good episode, and a very impressive concept... however, it is insulting the basic idea of a vampire, as well as fans of the sort.

However, this one does seem to have better acting than most, and it has the girl from Silent Hill in it, which amused me.

Overall... I'd give this episode a 6/10.

I just saw Saw III in theatres, and from the first five minutes I knew it would be a good film. I'm a big fan of the first two, and I wasn't disappointed in the least. There ARE a few important things to hit on with this film, though. Some good, some bad, but I plan to show you why I liked the film, why people who liked and disliked the first two may like it, and why I can understand if you don't.

One) Saw III is GREATLY similar to the first two films, with the same feel, same atmosphere, and same style; however, it has a new, interesting concept in tack... Closure. I knew many people who shared similar interests in movies with me who absolutely hated Saw, as well as Saw II, for more than anything, a single reason. They told so little about how they ended up there, as well as why. Saw III tells you nearly EVERYTHING you've wanted to know. The only thing it doesn't reveal from my experience, unless I missed something, is what happened to Dr. Gordon. It also has a very dramatic, climactic ending to it that both humoured and horrified me.

Two) The Gore... Many people didn't even watch the first two in fear that they had immense gore. Well, the first didn't have nearly as much as it was rumoured to have. The second one had some, but done in a way that didn't seem to obvious with everything else that went on. Saw II got you a lot more with how shocking it was than what happened. Saw III... is twice as gory as the first two combined. I am a big fan of gore, when used correctly, and I can see many disturbing things, but this film made me look away and cringe at LEAST three times. It's graphic, and intense.

Three) The Plot. The Plot of Saw III is very well done, and very developed with very few questions like the first two had. While the first told you almost nothing about the story, and the second one told you only the bases of the main story, while giving you very little background on the characters, this one tells you nearly everything. It goes into why these things are happening, and how they all go together is very intriguing. If you disliked the first and/or second because it didn't tell you enough, watch this one. It may redeem the first two greatly, and turn you into a fan. The films are like a Puzzle, which is very expressive and symbolic of the trilogy's nature.

Four) The Ending. God what an ending. Sad, intense, dramatic, emotional, twisted, and brilliant. I can understand why some fans won't like this ending, at first I wasn't sure if I did, but after thinking about it... it couldn't be better. My only disappointment is that... it nearly guarantees the lack of a fourth installment. It closes off the series, but it's an amazing end to the Trilogy.

Saw III is a good film, but I can understand people disliking it. It's not a film that you HAVE to love or hate, but it probably will be. It'll either impress or disappoint you.

The EFFECTS: This film was made with the intent of looking cheap, the man who came up with the concept (Daniel Davey) is a great fan of old-cult horror films, including the bad effects. He has money, a great deal of it, and this was made in 2000, so it wasn't that he had nothing to work with. So, seeing as how this is factual, I see not why people hold its low-budget against it.

A movie does NOT need to be high-budget to be a great film, and that is what Dani, as well as Alex, were aiming for in this product. Certainly it is not the best movie in the world, but people under-sell it for a number of reasons, mainly the effects but there are others, which I will soon address.

The DIALOGUE: First of all, nobody who worked on this film was excessively famous, not even very well known in fact. The Script was not a piece of gold because the writer wasn't very experienced, but as I've said before, and like the graphics, the Dialogue is not the most important factor. A film is a craft of a number of different ingredients, not themed on one.

The ACTING: There is not a single actor or actress in this film who should have been expected to perform any better than they did. The actors/actresses consist of musicians, new performers, and yes, porn stars. Why would you expect anybody here to have grammy deserving skills? The CONTENT: A lot of people complain about the great degree of blood and gore in this film, saying that it throws things off and is a sign for a lack of writing and directing skills. The film is meant to be excessively gory and twisted. If this film was remade with a massive budget, an All-Star cast of Academy Award winners, masterful writers and an infamously well-known director, it would still be just as sick and brutal if it kept the birth concept. The story is meant to be a series of sick, twisted thoughts, woven into a fabricated nightmare.

The PLOT: The plot is well-hidden beneath the content of the film, and not very well thought out, because for the type of movie this is it doesn't honestly matter.

The SUMMARY: In short, if you are looking for a deep, thought-out movie that has a crafty twist and powerful psychological effects, as well as an outstanding acting job with artful writing, this isn't a film you should ever look at. If you have a problem with high levels of gore, low-budget films, or movies that are movies just for the sake of movies, don't even consider this. It's not meant to be deep or life-changing. It's just a movie for people who appreciate good-old classic horror that parodies itself, and people who just want to see some senseless mayhem. It isn't a movie that you will adore, it isn't revolutionary, but it is entertaining, and if you really look at it, you can laugh at some of the ridiculously lame features in it. I think that Dani honestly wanted it to make people chuckle from time to time, because he knows horror, and this isn't scary.

What's scary, is people who think it's meant to be serious.

Arlington Road... what can I say about it? Well, first of all, when I initially saw this film I was much younger, but at even that time I felt it to be quite a splendid drama. The storyline flows easily, with little confusion, if any, and all though I would not consider it a... 'twist' ending, it is quite a new idea for one. I loved this movie, the characters are well adaptable and easy to get into, so it has a naturally strong impact emotionally. This is a film that will draw you into it without difficulty, and if you are the sensitive type, possibly leave you in tears.

I would recommend this to any fan of drama.

Erzsebet "Elizabeth" Bathory would strip some people down to their bones if she saw this appalling vision of her history. They even got her history incorrect. Aside from that, then you have the general storyline to this movie. I just really does not make sense. I understand that it's a movie and it doesn't have to be real, but... YES it does! To some extent, yes, it has to be real enough to make sense. This was created by someone who liked Vampires a little too much in school and read about Bathory, not everything, just a hand-full of things, rumours mostly, and said "I like Vampires... I like Video-Games... I like gruesome death... let's make a film..." The movie begins quite good, but ends up so... idiotic it's ridiculous. It's rather predictable, too.

At the start of it all, I had put this film off due to a number of things. For starters, it seemed as though it was going to be another Mission Impossible type film, that and I highly disliked Tom Cruise. However, after some time when I was at my father's selecting a few movies of his to take home and watch, I decided since it had such good ratings, I might as well give it an opportunity to impress me, after all, a movie I had watched just a week before staring Cruise, another which I had also put off, was The Last Samurai, and it was absolutely fantastic. Anyhow, this film took a new level on both crime dramas and sci-fi. It was an original idea with a comfortable, familiar feel to it that kept you drawn. The storyline is addictive and impressive, with a relatively surprising ending, as well as good. The entire movie is just terrific. I'd recommend this to just about anyone looking for a good movie. Terrific job, Mr. Cruise.

First of all, I will clearly mark WHEN the spoilers will begin, so until you see SPOILER ALERT do not worry.

Silent Hill is a series of video games that I have LONG been a fan of. I love every in and out of each game, every aspect and concept, I adore the whole basic idea. The atmosphere, the psychological effect, the symbolism... it's all brilliant. At first word of a film I was both incredibly excited and fearful, seeing as how several movies based on video games are very lousy, but when I watched the film I was astonished...

Despite what I had expect, this was not it. I had expected it to be a good movie on its own but pretty lousy in transition with the games, but...

This movie is amazing. While it must be created in a way somewhat different from the games for the audiences who have not played them (so that they'll understand), it still keeps the feel and essence of the video games.

Silent Hill, as a film, does have its problems, so those, first and foremost, is what I shall cover. I had three specific problems with this film, and no others.

SPOILER ALERT -The change in names and basic characters. While I understand that they had to have a main character in town so that it could help explain the plot a little more, and for the transition of the two separate worlds, using the mother instead of the father was unnecessary. All fans of the game wanted to see Harry Mason looking for his child, not his 'wife'. See, these characters also aren't Masons, but similar people with new names, Da Silva I believe. Sharon's name in the game was Cheryl, her father was searching for her, and the mother had died. I didn't mind this MUCH, but I felt it wasn't needed.

-There should have been more creatures involved. I would have liked to see a few more of the straightjackets (for those of you who don't know, that would be the creature that Cybil first sees, the one cast as "the Armless Man" that spits acid at her), I'd of liked to see the Grey Children in the school, that or the ghosts, and I'd of liked to see a little more of the Janitor. The creatures were extremely well done, very creepy, and true to the game for the most part, but needed to be more involved in the second half. Once you meet a creature, it's only in that scene, and then gone.

-Finally, (Red)Pyramid Head. Pyramid Head is my favourite character out of pretty much any movie or game, at least in the top three. He's brilliant, but half of his brilliance is due to his placement and meaning in SH2. He was an incredibly symbolic creature with deep meaning directed toward James, and only James. He was great in the film, but he needed more purpose, in the movie he just sort of played the ultimate creature rather than a symbolic daemon of guilt. Also, since he was placed in the movie he needed to be a little more involved. I liked what he did, when he kills Anna by skinning her... that was brilliant. I liked him disappearing where he did, but I'd of loved to see him appear in an entanglement of barbed wire at the end and just run forward and begin to hack people in half. In the entire movie he never kills anyone using his blade, which is somewhat strange.

Aside from all of this, the film was more of an addition to the series rather than a copy, really. You have to watch it as if it were just another movie, and NOT Silent Hill. Think of the Silent Hill creatures and cast as a cameo.

Some of the things I ADORED were: -The ending. Many people hated it, but if you EVER beat a Silent Hill game they never have 'happy' endings, or complete endings. They are always vague and confusing, and leave you wondering. That's exactly what the film did and it was BRILLIANT. The time before that,when the action slows down and it talks about the past, the part where people say it gets boring, is explaining a very in-depth, and creepy storyline that really amplifies the feel to the film.

-The atmosphere. Everything about the town and the creatures had the exact same feel as the game. The camera was the same way, where it's abstract, sometimes tilted or in weird locations, and pans with the character from far away or above. The design and layout of the town is very dark and gloomy, just like the game, as well as the movements of the creatures.

I could go on. I give this film a 10/10. I'm sorry, but it was a astonishing movie, the best I've seen in a very long time and the best I've ever seen of its genre. No horror or suspense is NEARLY as good. You have to be a deep person to appreciate it, and you can't be closed-minded.

Look, a remake isn't made to outdo or compete with the original version, it's to take the original and give it a new concept, try something new and different. It's to take one classic idea and take it in a new direction. The Wicker Man was NOT in ANY WAY a bad film, comparing it to the original, with how different it is, will lead people to think so, but it's a very good movie. It's creepy for a movie that takes place entirely in the daylight. Yes, it's predictable, very, but so what? It has a good feel to it. For a movie that hasn't really gotten much attention until it HIT theatres... it's very good.

7/10

Well, the film has some actors that I've seen in a few other places, I was surprised to see Paris Hilton in this and fairly disturbed by it, she can't act and she's not very attractive. She could have easily been replaced with a less-known actress with a better level of talent, those aren't hard to find compared to her. Anyhow, this isn't about a rant on Paris.

The film's storyline is reasonably good, and for the low-budget the camera was put to pretty strong use. The acting was pretty mediocre, but most of these kids were performing in one of their first movies so its understandable. It's a movie that, even if you're not a drug-user or anything like it, you can probably identify with it.

This is primarily a low-level drama, and not a comedy. It's got realistic comedic value, just every day jokes and laughs, but nothing out there just to make the audience laugh.

This is a good movie to watch if you have nothing better to do, but it's nothing I'd recommend buying or anything.

From the very beginning of this film you'll notice that the production value is LESS than a porn film. This looks like a home video. The storyline is, not only sloppy, but silly, and the general acting is absolutely horrific. NONE of the acting can amount to a Soap Opera, and that says a lot. There's no reason for pretty much anything that happens in this movie, and the actual murder scenes are terrible. It was kind of funny when the Doctor ate the organs and stuff, but it was really pretty sad. If you want to see a movie that has no purpose, extreme (yet pointless) cliché sexual content, possibly the worst filming ever, detectives beating up random people, and a midget serial killer... somehow you'll still be disappointed in this. It's not worth seeing.

I'm very much into realistic drama like this. The characters, all of them, were easily connected with in one form or another (whether it be a good or bad connection.) The character Sam was a bit young to connect with at first, but after a time you really start to remember what it was like at 14, but even though the story is based around him, I cannot say he's honestly a 'leading' character. The characters Clyde and Rocky were easier to get into, but they were sort of bland in essence due to their lack of lead importance in the story, they were portrayed well. Marty was probably the easy for me to connect with, because he portrays both the hostility and independence we all feel deep down. He may come across as a jerk, but looking into his story more deeply you'll begin to understand his hardships, and further into the movie you'll understand what's always bothering him.

And finally, George. George is a character that you very early on begin to hate, but the more you know him the more you like him, or at least feel sorry for him. He is obviously L.D., and you begin to realize that even though he can be hostile, he is incredibly good hearted, he just has a very... distorted view of the world. I ended up feeling really sorry for him, but it's this understanding and concern for someone so different, misunderstood, and desperate for attention that really grips you and impacts you during the most dramatic points.

This film has a very unusual ending that you may or may not see coming, but I won't reveal it here.

If you like realistic drama, see this movie.

Alright, this film is the representation of several things. For starters, this film is about a disgruntled student who brings a gun to school and shoots roughly 9 students. One student survives and is in the hospital with extensive head injuries. The lead character is what several people who consider a 'loner/goth', despite the movie's stating of her not being so. She seems quite mysterious, but was also the only unharmed student in the victimized classroom. She's questioned, due to having a history of knowing the shooter and having a record of being on the phone with him the night before. Anyhow, she's a very brief and distant person who seems to despise society. Yet, due to some, at first unexplained events, she spent roughly a year out of school, failing the grade. She has the desire to graduate, and the principle practically cons her into the only possible way she can pass is to spend time with the survivor, the girl in the hospital.

These two leads are nearly entirely opposite, and they are quite that on a social level. While Alisha is a quiet, inwardly disturbed, anti-social 'goth' girl who spends her time entirely alone (even though she seems to read quite often, somewhat of a closet/out of the closet bookworm), the other girl is a rich, popular 'bubbly' girl who seems always incredibly optimistic and trapped in her own fantasy world, ignoring the outside world and its realism to survive. I feel both of these roles to a marvelous job of representing MOST 'cliques' in the modern highschool, but more importantly shows how two entirely opposite girls who know nothing of each other eventually open to each other. While the injured girl learns a deep, meaningful truth on her once sheltered life and the outside world, Alisha learns that complete abandonment of society and locking everything inside is not always the best thing.

Many people will look to the connection between these two girls and see one of two things. Either, a snobby, hateful girl who wants he rest of the world to suffer as she does, taking it out on an innocent girl, OR the story of a seemingly trapped, fantasized girl who meets an outcast to society and learns not only not to judge, but that she is actually, perhaps, one of the most intelligent people she's known. In other words, people may see this film as a focus on Alisha teaching the other girl a lesson about life, but it isn't about that.

This film is about SEVERAL things. While it is about all I have stated, it is also representative of how people deal from a large, life-changing catastrophe. Truly, this movie is not very symbolic, but instead incredibly straight forward with its message, as long as you aren't afraid to open your mind, and your heart, to some emotions you may not be familiar with being portrayed so miraculously.

Overall, this film is one of the best I've ever seen. The acting is brilliant, the storyline and representation is deep and meaningful, and the emotion flowing through-out this film will have anyone not only relating, but possibly crying. This film is by far heart-wrenching, and very impactful, and if I ever believed any film could alter a person's life... this would be the first that could have changed mine.

I adored this movie, if you ever want a movie that's moving and impactful, while incredibly entertaining and REAL, watch this.