mattdvs

Working for a TV station, I was lucky enough to get to see the first episode of this show. It's a smart and funny show that I hope continues in this direction. It's two lead actors, Ron Livingston and Rosemarie Dewitt, play their roles as crisis negotiators very well. I only hope that the writing continues to be as strong in progressive episodes as it was in the pilot.

Being a big fan of "harder edge" shows like 24, The Shield, & The Sopranos, I was surprised to find I really enjoyed this show. I've been a big fan of Ron Livingston's since he had a side role in Swingers back in '96, and while I haven't seen much featuring Rosemarie Dewitt, I thought she provided a perfect foil for Ron Livingston's dry wit.

Overall, I'd rate the show an 8 out of 10, only because I've only seen the first episode so far. I hope they continue to build on the relationship between the two lead characters and keep the level of writing high.

Ancient Greece was a very tidy place, or at least that's what the makers of Troy would have us believe. In the scenes following battles, Brad Pitt and his band of Greek soldiers look as pretty and well-kept as any shampoo commercial extras. They're chiseled bodies are clean-shaven, scar-free, and completely devoid of any of the dirt, blood, or other debris that would usually occupy a person after a battle. Not very realistic, don't ya think?

That's what I thought too. There's no way that, following a bloody battle where heads, arms, legs, and other appendages get lopped off in the most grotesque ways, soldiers could come off the battlefield as clean as this. In fact, out of all the characters in Troy, only evil generals Agamemnon and Menelaus, played by Brian Cox (X-men 2, L.I.E.) and Brendan Gleeson (Braveheart, 28 Days Later, Gangs of New York) look as hairy and dirty as one would imagine their characters would.

Troy, ineptly directed by Wolfgang Peterson (Air Force One, In the Line of Fire, The Perfect Storm), comes off as a film that doesn't know quite what it wants to be. Does it want to have the quiet personal notes mixed in with the one-on-one carnage of the much-superior Gladiator, or is it striving for the grand CG battles of Lord of the Rings? This dichotomy of aspirations causes it to fall short on both accounts. In its pursuit of being the ultimate battle-carnage-swords-and-sandals epic, the audience is left with nothing but comparisons to better films. This is not to say Troy doesn't have its moments of awe mixed in with the mediocrity. The sets are great, the costumes are appropriately realistic, and several of the CG shots look amazing, albeit strangely out of focus in some instances. Also, the performances of Cox, Gleeson, Eric Bana as Hector, and Sean Bean as Odysseus are so good that I wish the entire film had been about them. The scenes where they're on screen have such a gravity to them that their characters almost pull us away from the been-there-done-that feel of the rest of the movie. I think this could be because none of them are in the same realm, publicity-wise, as Brad Pitt. Their characters are made more believable by the fact that we don't know as much about their personal lives as we do Pitt's. In fact, I would have to say the casting of Brad Pitt is one of the biggest problems with this film.

Now, before I commence trashing his performance in Troy, let me say that I generally regard him as one of my favorite actors; when he picks the right roles, that is. In Fight Club, Ocean's Eleven, Se7en, 12 Monkeys, and others, he shows he's not just a pretty face, and that he has some definite acting chops. The problem is that he's so visible a superstar that we don't buy him in the least as Achilles. I understand that being the son of a goddess would probably make Achilles a pretty attractive dude, but he is still a warrior. He would still have battle scars, still get dirty, and (gasp!), his hair wouldn't always look like he just walked out of a Pantene commercial. Pitt's performance isn't bad per-se, just average. His fight scenes are nifty, if a little over-choreographed, and his hairless body shows off every muscle to perfection (not to mention his ass, which we get to see a few times too many). Pitt's line delivery is a little shaky, though. His lines are generally delivered with a growl that makes him sound about as menacing as my grandmother with laryngitis. Of course, I can't pin all the blame for his performance on him, since he isn't really given all that much to work with. The script, written by David Benioff (The 25th Hour), is at best summer movie cheese and at worst, a blatant rip-off of Gladiator ('Are you not entertained?' has now been changed to, 'Is there no one else?'), with none of the latter's originality or transcendent philosophizing.

Another major problem with this film is in an area one generally only notices when it's obviously good or obviously bad, the score. Star Wars, Schindler's List, Gladiator, and Lord of the Rings are prime examples of how an epic movie can be made even more epic in scope by having powerful music behind it. Even Titanic had a score so powerful that I'll cop to humming it for days afterward. Unfortunately, Troy has a musical score that is only memorable for being trite, lazy, redundant, and just plain bad. Noticeably bad. Resoundingly bad. Listening to Troy is like playing a cinema version of name that tune; one can immediately pick out melodic lines ripped directly from Braveheart, Gladiator, Stargate, and Enemy at the Gates. James Horner, apart from composing Troy, is generally one of the more dependable composers scoring for films today, even composing scores for Titanic, Braveheart, and Enemy at the Gates, and winning a few Oscars in the process. This is part of the problem with his compositions in Troy. His previous works are so recognizable that it's obvious when he's ripping himself off. An interesting point to mention is that Horner wasn't Peterson's first choice for Troy. Composer Gabriel Yared (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Cold Mountain, and the upcoming Shall we dance?) had composed and recorded a complete soundtrack for Troy, but Peterson, at the last moment, decided to reject it as being too old-fashioned and commissioned Horner to write a brand new score. I find that interesting, considering the entire point of Troy is to be an old-fashioned swords-and-sandals epic. I hope sometime they release Yared's original work so comparisons can be made between the two.

Altogether, I don't think Troy is an awful movie. It's not even a particularly bad one. For a summer distraction, there are much worse ways to spend three hours. The problem I had was that it was just average, not spectacular in any way. Given the cast and budget, Troy could have been great and to have it turn out to be so mediocre is a real disappointment. With all of the budget crunches going on right now at both the state and federal levels of government, I can't help but think that the $200 million spent on making this film could have been much more wisely spent.

Is high school really a jungle? According to Mean Girls, the answer is yes. In our protagonist's mind, high school cliques mirror the African food chain, with teen-queen `plastics' acting the role of lionesses, and jocks the role of monkeys.

Cady, played by Lindsay Lohan, was raised on the African safari. Having been home-schooled by her explorer parents, she enters high school and quickly discovers that public school isn't really that much different than where she just came from. Different cliques of kids, just like different herds of animals, fight and jostle for position, trying not to be the next one `eaten' by the other students. On her first day of school, Cady is completely unaware of how high school kids are treated by both each other and by teachers. She sits in the wrong seats, hangs out with the wrong cliques, and gets in trouble for trying to excuse herself for a bathroom break without a teacher's permission. She immediately meets and hooks up with a few other outsiders who are plotting revenge against the most popular girls in school, known as the Plastics. The Plastics are the hottest girls in school. They have the most freedoms, best clothes, best cars, and everyone strives to be them. They exist above everyone and think Cady should feel privileged when they reach out to her and make her one of them. At first, Cady doesn't buy it. She plays the Plastic's game just so she can spy on them and report back to her outcast friends, all while plotting an intricate revenge against the queen Plastic, Regina George, played by The Hot Chick's Rachel McAdams. The problem comes when, after living the life of a Plastic for a while, Cady begins to like it. She begins to only want to carry out the revenge plot on Regina just so she can supplant her. She takes Regina's title, and gains all the power that comes along with it, all while alienating her former friends. Of course, by the end, Cady learns her lesson and makes peace with everyone she's wronged.

The script, based on a book by Rosalind Wiseman and written for the screen by Tina Fey, is sharp and not without the mean spirit implied in the title. In fact, while most of the acting, with the exception of Lohan and Fey, who cameos as a feminist math teacher, is typical, the script stands out as being the film's strongest attribute. Fey cleverly avoids the typical teen movie clichés, the most obvious being the parents walking in on a party being thrown at their house in their absence. In this film, when Cady throws her over-the-top house party, nothing serious gets wrecked and the parents never find out. Setups like this lend an air of unpredictability to the movie and make us not see the more shocking moments coming, most of which involve a speeding school bus. Lindsay Lohan displays more of the same comedic timing as she did in last summer's excellent Freaky Friday remake, and further reinforces my opinion that she's the best of the current crop of teen actresses, which includes Hillary Duff and Amanda Bynes.

Mean Girls is a very funny film, and, although it's not wholly original (Heathers did much of the same thing fifteen years ago), the script sets it apart as a wholly new experience. Think of it as a less bleak version of Heathers, albeit without the murder. But while Heathers only displayed two groups of high schoolers, the Heathers and everyone else, Mean Girls puts on display the whole wide spectrum of cliques and how each relates to each other, all while bringing the metaphor back to its point of how we're all really nothing more than animals.

13 Going On 30 sounds like a retread of the 1988 Tom Hanks comedy Big. The plot is basically the same; Using a wishing device (a fortune telling machine in Big, some `wishing dust' in 13), a young teen gets picked on by their peers and wishes to be older (actually, in Big he just wished to be bigger, but ends up older). They become successful as adults because of their childlike (or is it childish) minds. In the end however, they just want to go back to being a kid again, despite the pressures. Big was a fantastic comedy about the `kid in all of us' and how not to forget that kid when we grow up to be cynical adults. Where 13 Going On 30 takes it's departure, however, is in the fact that 17 years passes between Garner's character Jenna's wish on her 13th birthday and when she wakes up to find she's now 30, whereas in Big it's just the next day. This sets 13 up to be more about being true to yourself when you're younger in an effort to grow up and become a more well-rounded person. In 13 Going On 30, when Jenna wakes up the `next morning,' really 17 years later, she first thinks she's still 13, then after realizing she's not, she comes to realize that even though she has the hunky professional athlete boyfriend, dream job, and the fabulous apartment, her life is not all that great. Her boyfriend is a dufus, her friends all secretly hate her, she's distanced from her parents, and she's completely separated from the only person who really cared about her when she was a kid, her next-door neighbor cum best friend, Mattie, played as an adult by Mark Ruffalo. Well, in typical romantic comedy fashion, after finding out everything that is really wrong with her adult life up until that point, she works everything out with everyone, all while learning valuable life lessons. Needless to say, she gets the guy and everything works out fine in the end, no big surprises there. She ends up back as an awkward 13-year-old and gets a do-over with her life, something I'm sure many of us, myself included, would like to do. 13 Going On 30, while not being unique for its originality (besides big, there are overtures of My Best Friends Wedding and Freaky Friday), or it's writing, which is pretty par for the course, shines because of one major thing. That thing is Jennifer Garner. Jennifer Garner has a screen presence where the best compliment I could pay is that I couldn't see anyone else, not Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon, playing this role. As the adult version of Jenna, she comes across as childlike without being annoying and childish. She's geeky, awkward, uncool, and yet still comes across completely believable. I'm usually the first one to pick apart the script in a film like this, but yet it was made difficult because of Garners incredible presence. She definitely is Hollywood's It girl of the moment, and, while she's amazingly beautiful, she proves on her show Alias and again in this movie, that she really does have some acting chops.

Now this film is not perfect. The main flaw I saw was in its third act, where it takes a dramatic turn. It completely switches gears, stops going for the laughs, and starts going for the tears. I didn't feel this was completely necessary. Yes, our hero has to his bottom at some point. She has to feel as low as possible in order for her redemption to mean anything, but the way this is executed was too much. It was as if the writers said, `Okay, we've made them laugh, now let's try and get them to cry.' This seemed odd and more than a little forced to me. All in all, I thought this was a good movie. Not a fantastic romantic comedy ranking up with the My Best Friends Wedding or When Harry Met Sally, but a great film just to enjoy watching. Especially considering it's Jennifer Garner's first attempt at a lead role, it accomplishes it's mission, which is to make us anxiously wait for what she's going to do next.

Tarantino makes his return to the talky action movie genre with the second part in his Kill Bill epic. The first, naturally titled Kill Bill Volume 1, followed the Bride, a former assassin played by Uma Thurman, as she exacted bloody revenge on her former colleagues. All we learn in the first movie is that on her wedding day, while pregnant, Bill, the Bride's boss, and his gang of DiVAS (Deadly Viper Assassination Squad) ambushed the wedding and massacred everyone. They presumed to have killed the Bride, but they failed and instead left her in a coma for four years. After waking up and teaching her muscles to move again, she begins her rampage to kill all those who wronged her. The first movie concludes with the Bride killing the two bottom-tier assassins in the squad along with sixty-something bodyguards. At the end of Volume 1, we learn that he baby survived and, unbeknownst to her, was taken in by Bill and raised as his daughter. We didn't know who any of the characters were, why they wanted to kill the Bride, or really anything at all about Bill, the charismatic leader of the gang. Volume 1 was a hyper-kinetic action movie that only really took pause once, to explain how the Bride got her samurai sword. It was a great film, but felt pretty superficial compared to any of Tarantino's others, in that one of his trademarks is the intimacy the audience feels with the characters. The two volumes were supposed to come out as one movie, but as shooting went on, Tarantino and Miramax realized they were gonna have a four hour action movie on their hands, and so they decided to cut it into two more manageable chunks. After watching Volume 2, it's hard to believe that Kill Bill was ever supposed to be anything but.

If Volume 1 was supposed to just introduce us to the story and then watch the characters kill each other, Volume 2 explains all the whys. Volume 1 was all action; Volume 2 is all talking. This isn't meant to be a bad thing, however. By the end of Volume 1, we wanted to know why we saw what we just saw. In Volume 2, Tarantino explains it to us. This serves to make us more connected with the characters. We really care who lives and who dies. And, the greatest thing about Volume 2 is by the end, even though we know what a heartless, murdering ba****d Bill is, we kinda like him. We don't even like him in that villain-loving way, where we want to see him get his comeuppance. We honestly like him and kinda wanna see him and the Bride (later revealed to be named Beatrix Kiddo) end up to raising their daughter together. Obviously, as you can probably tell by the title, this doesn't happen. No spoiler warning necessary there.

This is quite a feat for Tarantino to pull off, given everything that we've seen before the end and knowing full well Bill and his cronies did everything to kill the Bride in several heinous ways. This is what makes Kill Bill Volume 2 a fantastic movie. By making us wait to have our questions answered, our sympathies change and change again throughout the story. Yes, it's a talky movie, as every Tarantino movie up until Volume 1 was, but the dialogue is largely interesting and only serves to give every character some form of dimension. Don't go into it expecting more of the same ultraviolence and gore as we saw in the first one, but rather with the attitude of trying to find out why all the ultraviolence and gore was necessary.

My ratings (out of ****):

Volume 1 Writing *** Acting **** Direction ***1/2 Action **** Overall ***1/2 Volume 2 Writing **** Acting **** Direction **** Action ***1/2 Overall **** Entire epic Overall ****

So we saw The Punisher last night. It was free, and, after it was over, I thought the price was just right. This isn't to say it's a terrible movie. It's not nearly as bad as some of the crap in theaters right now (I'm looking right at you Ladykillers and Whole Ten Yards). Anyway, The Punisher, based on the Marvel comic book character, was better than I expected. However, that isn't saying much because I expected total garbage. It all comes down to how much crap you can sift through before you get to the good stuff. The following review is of the movie alone, not a comparison to the comic, which I never read. I understand from reading a lot of other people's reviews that the movie is nothing like the comic.

The film starts out with our hero, Frank Castle, participating in a FBI sting operation that goes slightly awry when the son of our villain, who wasn't even supposed to be there in the first place, is killed in a shootout with the FBI strike team. From there, we cut to Castle coming home to meet his wife, the one-note Samantha Mathis, and tell her he's officially retired. Much happiness and heartfelt conversation ensue. The family is happy that Daddy is finally gonna settle down and stop moving them all over the place. Cut to the Saint family getting the news that their son has been killed. There's much anger and weeping, culminating in a overly dramatic and comic-booky scene (yes I know it's based on a comic book) where Saint's wife tells her husbands henchman to wipe out Castle and his entire family, who, conveniently enough, happen to be at a family reunion in Puerto Rico. Long story short, after a series of horribly written speeches where each member of the family, Mom, Dad, Grandpa, and even little Timmy (or Joey, or whatever his name is), gets a chance to say a bunch of cheesy stuff that's designed to make us feel for the family, when all we want is for them to get on with the killin. Speeches over, everyone lovin each other, the massacre begins. On the order from their boss, Howard Saint, played stiffly and nervously by John Revolta (oops I mean Travolta), Saint's goonsquad, who for some reason dress like rejects from a gay matrix-themed party, ambush the family and kill them all, including wifey and little Bobby, leaving Castle presumed dead and floating out to sea. Well of course he isn't dead. Somehow, with the help of some voodoo island guy, he gets better, recovering from being shot IN THE CHEST (ummm okay?). When next we see him, his bullet holes are healed-over and he's sportin' a Castaway-style beard. He finds the skull t-shirt that little Mikey gave to him to `ward off evil spirits' (whatever), finds Grandpa's gun collection, and begins to plot his revenge. Now up to here, the movie isn't too horrible, just kinda dumb. You can tell by the writing that they're taking source information from a comic book. The massacre scene has some cool stuff but on the whole it's par for the course. It's from this point through the next half hour that the movie hits it's low point, starting with the meeting of Dave and Bumbo.

Who are Dave and Bumbo you ask? Well they're Frank's wacky, idiotic, comic-relief providing neighbors who provide the audience a chance to laugh at their wacky, idiotic ways. I hated these characters. Hated, hated, hated hated, hated. Them and their I'm-hot-but-I-don't-know-it-so-I-hang-out-with-these-jerkoffs neighbor Joan, played by comic book movie staple Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. Joan fills the typical woman-in-distress role ably, but blandly. She wants to hook it up with the punishing one but he's too busy punishing and drinking to notice either her hotness or how easy it would be to get all up in that. Stupid bastard. Other annoyingly pointless plot devices ensue, involving a gay villain and a singing, guitar playing hitman. It's right at this point where the movie really started to p*** me off.

Then all of a sudden it switches gears and redeems itself. After a cartoony but fun scene where our hero who likes to punish gets his butt kicked by this huge Russian guy (pro-wrestler Kevin Nash), the movie gets very dark, very fast. Thankfully, it stays that way until the end. The last 20 minutes of the movie are by far the best part of the movie. Finally, after an hour and a half of cheesy speeches and wacky neighbors, our hero becomes the guy we've been waiting for, a badass. After messing around with Saint through the whole movie, playing little tricks and games with him, Castle costumes up in his best I'm-a-badass-but-I'm-still-too-wussy-to-not-wear-kevlar gear, grabs his daddy's guns, and makes his assault on Saint's headquarters. And what a cool assault it is. Of course, there is still some comic book cheesiness here and there, but the scenes of Frank walking in and cold-bloodedly whacking every person in the joint just about, but not quite, make this movie worth paying for.

At the end of the day, see this movie if you can sneak in for free, or see it when someone else rents the DVD. It's okay for a fun diversion, but not a good movie. However, if you don't go in expecting Shakespeare out of the script or John Williams out of the score (which is admittedly HORRIBLE), then you may have a good time. Just take my advice and snooze all you want during the middle, but try to stay awake for the ending.

About six months ago, I heard about a film coming out starring two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks, Stephen Root (news radio) and J.K. Simmons (fantastic as the racist villain of HBO's Oz). This film was to be a remake of a great 50's dark comedy starring Alec Guinness and was to be directed by my favorite of the brothers-making-movies teams, the Coen brothers. Joel and Ethan Coen have directed a bunch of great movies, including Fargo and The Big Lebowski, and also one of my all-time favorites, O Brother, Where art thou? This film was to come out in April, 2004 and reestablish Tom Hanks as an exciting comic actor. The film I am talking about is of course The Ladykillers. I've anxiously awaited this movie for months, especially after seeing the hilarious trailers. I was even excited despite the presence of a Wayans brother, which generally signifies the death of any movie.

Well we saw it last night. At long last I got to see what was assumed to be the Coen's next great film. After stumbling with the sell-out Intolerable Cruelty, they were gonna rise from the ashes like the proverbial phoenix and reestablish their credibility with movie geeks. After about two thirds of the movie, I had my suspicions; by the end, they were confirmed. This was definitely the worst movie the Coens (and Tom Hanks, for that matter) have ever made. Intolerable Cruelty was Oscar quality compared to The Ladykillers. At long last, after what was probably the longest streak of great films by any actor since Brando, Tom Hanks has (gasp) made a bad movie. A really bad one. I literally found nothing redeeming about this film except the gospel-filled soundtrack, which was along the same lines as O Brother.

The plot, revolving around a riverboat casino heist, comes of as remarkably stupid and unbelievable. Tom Hanks puts on his best (or worst) southern accent to play some sort of cross between the devil and an annoyingly turrets-inflicted Colonel Sanders. Master thespian Marlon Wayans gangstas it up (again) as the `inside man' who somehow knows how to flawlessly patch up a huge hole in a vault wall so the casino owners can never know how the money disappeared. And then there's J.K. Simmons, who has the unlucky duty of playing a demolitions expert whose only job is to pick fight after fight with Wayons and nearly crap his pants multiple times. It's a sad thing to say that the one moment of dramatic tension in the heist scene comes when Simmons, in a rush to avoid both a tunnel-collapsing bomb and a craptacular experience in his shorts, shoots out of the tunnel and into the table containing neat stacks of all the stolen loot, which of course launches all 1.6 million dollars flying into the air at the exact same instant that the old lady at whose house the heist takes place comes through the door.

The ending, which I won't spoil for those of you stupid enough to ignore my advice, is lame bordering on totally ludicrous, involving a seemingly endless, and conveniently timed, train of barges filled with garbage.

It's always disheartening when a movie that was one of the most anticipated movies of the year, turns out to be this bad. I guess it just goes to show that you can have talented writers, directors, and actors, and can still end up with a movie that reeks more than the aforementioned floating garbage. * out of ****

Having just scanned through this insipid piece of drivel, I feel like my IQ is now lower. The incessant prattle of the annoyingly unfunny lead character made me want to drive a railroad spike through my head. No wonder it went straight to video. Even though I got a free copy of this movie, I feel like I paid too much.

Made by the same people who made Age of Empires I and II, Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds is an excellent game. Just about everything from AoE has been translated into ST:GB. Players of AoE will instantly be able to play SW:GB and will enjoy the few extras that are there. For one, the graphics look amazing. For another, there are a few more researchable upgrades not available in the previous games. The only drawback is the lack of playable civilizations. Only being able to play as six civs (Empire, Trade Federation, Gungans, Wookies, Rebels, and the Naboo) limits the replayability, even though it doubles the civs playable in Starcraft. Overall a very enjoyable game, with especially high praise for the soundtrack.

easy. very is plot film's this in lost Getting carefully. film this to, listen and watch, really you sure make to, planning are and it seen haven't you If hours. few a for with played be minds their let and Memento watch to noir film a of concept old the about skeptical is who everyone for is advice My about. it's what understand finally I think I times, five least at it watching and it buying After plot. the about nuances the all get to enough isn't times three even or twice, it seeing where seen I've film first the is This Lenny. of portrayal his for Oscar an for up be should Pearce Guy and amazing, is direction the first-rate, is writing The for. goes it everything at excels film This be. would it brilliant how know didn't I experience, strange a expecting in right was I While experience. strange a for in myself strapped I so and is it mindscrew a what heard had I DVD. on out came it when it watch to able finally was I time, long a for movie this see to wanting After

What else can be said? This is one of the best, if not the best, comedy ever made. Mel Brooks is a genius. If you haven't seen this movie, see it. Don't be frightened by the fact that it's 25 years old, it'll still make you howl with laughter.

About the only thing I can say I enjoyed about this movie was the soundtrack. This pretty much sums up Jet Li's newest foray into his own lack of acting chops. The soundtrack, featuring many current hard rock artists was a fun distraction from the ridiculous plot, meandering direction, and sheer lack of talent on the part of the "star," Jet Li. Costarring in this debacle is Jason Statham, who is usually fun to watch but even here he seems flat and uninspired. Besides the soundtrack, about the only other saving grace is some cool "Matrix"-esque effects. Many of them work well within the context of the plot, but bullet-time effects like these are nothing new anymore.

Overall, this film was just a waste of film stock. A friend I saw this with even said he was watching only for the martial arts action and was disappointed. He said the action was confused by the overusage of special effects and would have been better served with less concentration on the cool things one can do with digital effects and more on the martial arts.

Finally a football movie that gives the viewer what they want, football. Yes, "The Replacements" is a stupid, unrealistic movie, but it's not meant to be taken that seriously. It's a comedy overall, but also features some great football action with hilarious performances by John Favreau and Ryhs Ifans. The thing that surprised me is that it's actually pretty well written. For a film that doesn't try to achieve any kind of social commentary, it's screenplay doesn't dip into the melodrama of "Any Given Sunday," or the cheesy themes of "Rudy." Of course, there is a love story involved, but by making the woman not just a cheerleader but actually very knowledgeable about football, it allows her to interact in the story and not just be the token babe. Keanu Reeves, who I normally ridicule relentlessly, is at his dunderheaded best in a role that seems to suit him almost as well as his character in "The Matrix" did. I was surprised/delighted to see Gene Hackman in this film; he gives it a center of gravity around which all the other characters revolve. Overall, not taking itself too seriously is the greatest asset to this movie. Just having this quality, from which many other films could benefit, gives it a light-hearted feel that's just plain fun to watch.

I expected exactly what I got. I expected more of the same gags from the first film at a cost of it's originality. "American Pie" was a hilarious, but still truthful, look at teen sexuality. It was clever, well written, and accomplished the rare feat of not treating it's audience like dullards. "American Pie 2," on the other hand, is just basically warmed-over gags seemingly left out of it's predecessor's script. Yes, many of these gags are hilarious and fun to watch, but gone is the original's creative writing and plot. This film just seems to be the writer saying, "Hey, let's do the exact same thing, but this time at the beach!" As far as the cast goes most of the actors do an honorable job staying true to their original characters, with the glaring exception of Chris Klein, who exudes this cheesy "sensitive" act of a pretty-boy with zero acting chops. However, Jason Biggs, Alyson Hannigan, and Eddie Kaye Thomas, most notably, have the potential to become great comic actors, and Eugene Levy (the best part of the first film) is just as hilarious. Basically, if you liked the first one, you'll like this one, but I can guarantee after the hype for the sequel dies down, it will be forgotten long before the original.

My girlfriend and I went to see this film at a special sneak preview and I must admit, even though I knew it was gonna be pretty stupid, I had high hopes. I'm a big fan of Steve Zahn and Jack Black and so I thought at least they would be good. I was sorely disappointed. This film is one of the worst comedies I've seen in a while. It tries very hard but it just isn't funny, and this is due to the fact that the audience doesn't care about a single character. As a side note, the Neil Diamond sub-plot is completely ridiculous. I don't really know what went wrong with this film, but something definitely did. The writing alternates between predictable and ludicrous. The direction goes no where new, and even the acting, for the most part, seems forced and proves once again that Jason Biggs was a fluke with American Pie. I'm sorry to say this movie sucks all around.

People shouldn't try to compare "Family Guy" with "The Simpsons." While I am a HUGE fan of both shows, and do realize the similarities between them, I feel it's stupid to try to compare them. They are way too different for a comparison. I would rather note how, instead of being a rip-off of "The Simpsons," "Family Guy" is a parody. "The Simpsons" comedy stems from exaggerated but still reality-based situations where the characters often have normal reactions to them (especially in the earlier seasons). "Family Guy"'s comedy is totally different. With characters like a talking alcoholic dog and a Bond-villain-esque baby, the comedy is trying to be outlandish and non-realistic. At this point, all "Family Guy" needs is to stay on the air long enough to really develop it's characters just as "The Simpsons" did. I'm sure, given this space and freedom from censors, "The Family Guy" will evolve into a classic along the lines of, but not the same as, "The Simpsons."

If you were born between the years 1974 and 1984 and were as obsessed as most of us were about Nintendo games, you will enjoy this movie. Yes, the plot is predictable and cheesy and the writing leaves a lot to be desired, but I guarantee if you fall into the above group, you will enjoy regressing back to 1989 where having "all 97 games," and "the power glove (it's so bad...)" were major status symbols. If you don't fall into this group, or couldn't really care less about old video games, then you should probably pass on this film. But for the rest of us, (I used to watch the commercial for this film just to get a glimpse at Super Mario Bros. 3) watch it and enjoy it time after time.

A friend of mine bought this movie a few days ago and, out of sheer boredom, I sat down and watched it with him. I was VERY surprised to find it an excellent film. While not going for any themes loftier than self-respect, self-discipline, and the physics of smoking A LOT of pot, this is a very entertaining and hilarious movie. Ice Cube's script is extremely quoteable and serves as great fodder for Chris Tucker's loud-mouth persona. I also enjoyed the fact that while most films dealing with life in the "hood" are dark and depressing, this film is able to tell a similar story, of two guys trying not to get killed by a drug dealer they owe money to, with a much lighter attitude. The characters are realistic and the cast playing them has a strong chemistry that supports the story. This very funny movie should be watched and enjoyed by all, regardless of personal backgrounds.

Before I commence trashing this game, let me say I'm a HUGE fan of the Simpsons. I consider it far and away one of the best shows on TV (along with The Sopranos). Now to the game, a friend of mine and I rented it the first day it came out and had very high hopes. We were sorely disappointed. While it's cool for about the first ten minutes that you can play as many Simpsons characters, each with their own special moves, the gameplay is just not there. Once the initial gimmick of playing a simpsons-based fighting game wears off, you'll realize there is a lot lacking. For starters, the graphics are not nearly as good as they could have been, there are WAY too few options, not nearly enough playable characters (considering the number of characters on the show), and even the characters that are playable are unbalanced and have too few moves. Overall, I'm sorry to say this game seems to be thrown together without much time spent on making it fun.

I was dragged to this movie by a girlfriend so, needless to say, I wasn't expecting much of anything. While I enjoyed Baz Luhrman's "Romeo and Juliet," I wasn't part of the masses of people that thought it was a towering achievement. Before I saw MR, I heard they were using current pop songs ("Like a virgin,""Roxanne") in the soundtrack and was very skeptical. Well I must say is was much better than I expected, and just about all the pop songs fit very well, with the possible exception of "Like a virgin," which was totally unnecessary. I actually liked this film a lot, and was very happy that Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman sang their own parts. The visual style displayed is key, but not the only drawing point, and therefore works well within the context of the famous French nightclub. My only complaint really was that it was about 20 minutes too long. With a TRT of over 2 hours, the plot is just not thick enough to support this length, and therefore becomes a major detractor. 7/10

Proof positive that a film does not need a huge budget or a name cast to be great. I first saw this film about 4 years ago and it has remained, since that day, one of my favorite films. Jon Favreau's script is nearly flawless and infinitely quoteable (You're money, baby!). This is a film that knows it's main audience will be single guys, and therefore rewards us with very realistic characters that are easily related to. Who among us has not experienced similar situations to Mike's answering machine relationship breakdown? I can't even watch that scene because it's too tragic and heart-wrenching. This is a film that I'd describe as a realistic comedy. So many "comedies" today feature totally unrealistic situations that are totally contrived that they lose the feeling that the characters are human. "Swingers" is a comedy, don't get me wrong, but kick-to-the-gut scenes like Mike's breakdown give the human touch that actually makes laughing in the right spots easier. By the end of the film, you feel satisfied because you haven't just watched some vapid, shallow comedy, but rather you've seen a film where you genuinely care about the characters, because you've seen them at their best and worst.

I waited a pretty long time before seeing this movie because I didn't want to deal with the rice rocket rallies during the first few weekends. I knew, just from the previews, that it would attract a large audience, no matter whether it was actually a decent film or not. After seeing it, I have to admit, once I turned off the analytical part of my brain, I enjoyed it. While it's definitely true that the screenplay was trite and predictable and most of the actors were seemingly hired based on looks rather than talent, this film was saved by a few things. The most obvious of this film's saviors was the outstanding camera work during the films many chase/race sequences. Also, Vin Diesel has a magnetic charisma that makes his even his non-racing scene watchable. A few of the other actors, in particular Michelle Rodriguez, turn in passable performances too, although I'm definitely not impressed by pretty boy Paul Walker, who phones in a typical and contrived performance. Overall, if, like me, you're able to turn off the part of your brain that wants you to scream "Who talks like that???", then you'll probably find this an enjoyable film, if forgettable, film. 3/5

Talk about a movie that is accessible on many levels... This film could be a very superficial sci-fi actioner about a group of enthusiastic soldiers fighting alien bugs, or it could be an ultra-satirical parody of World War II propaganda films, right down to Doogie Howser's SS coat. I've seen this film exactly twice, and admittedly wrote it off after my initial viewing as nothing more than another movie where the only good performance delivered is by the special effects artists. Well, on a whim, I rented it again last night and, after watching it again, I realized the full extent of the satire and loved it. The writing in this movie could easily be described as ultra-cheesy, trite, and conventional, but I think this is exactly the point. Even down to the non-descript title, this film is trying to be a complete parody. It's an anti-war movie at heart, and an excellent one. It just needs to be thought about with more in mind than the gratuitous nudity and extreme gore.

Director Sena should stick to R-rated movies. After last years dismal covering of the classic "Gone in 60 seconds," he returns to direct the profane, bloody, violent, sexually explicit "Swordfish," and he does so with great visual flair and sense of self-awareness. Sena knows exactly what kind of movie he is making here. "Swordfish" is big, it's loud, it's dumb, but it will keep you interested in the plot for the full two hours. It's a great example of a movie that knows it's a summer blockbuster and doesn't try to do anything except keep you intrigued enough to stay in the air-conditioned theater for it's duration. Being that I am a film student, I'm usually hyper-critical of movies, especially in the writing department. That said, I didn't go see this film expecting "Schindler's list," but I was still impressed by the screenplay. It's written in a way that doesn't dumb down the dialogue for the lazier audience members. The plot has enough twists and turns to keep you guessing at the ending until it reveals itself. From Travolta's disconcerting opening monologue to the blowout ending, this is a high-energy film that doesn't take itself too seriously. I'd advise anyone who can take a little sex and violence who is looking for just a fun movie to check this one out.

See this movie... if only for the nonsensical title. See this movie... if only for Torgo's theme music. See this movie... if only for the random scenes of a couple making out in a convertible for no good reason. See this movie... just because it was written and directed by a fertilizer salesman. Whatever your justification may be, I dare you to see it and be prepared to find out how bad one movie can be.